Philosophers and Health Care Policy Makers

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm referring to the harm that results from making policy decisions based solely on cost-benefit analyses. You posted the article, Ivanhoe. Re-read it, and pay attention to the parts where a specifically utilitarian form of moral deliberation is at work.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I had the impression that the author wasn't only speaking about 100% utilitarianism but also about other forms of bioethics including the theories and ideas you are presenting here on RHP
.

Originally posted by bbarr
I can understand how one would get that mistaken impression if they didn't pay attention to either 1) any of my posts, or 2) the many places in the article that describe the meta-ethical position at work as 'utilitarian'. I'm glad we've cleared up your confusion.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm referring to the harm that results from making policy decisions based solely on cost-benefit analyses. You posted the article, Ivanhoe. Re-read it, and pay attention to the parts where a specifically utilitarian form of moral deliberation is at work.

Actually, you'll find very few advocates of Utilitarianism amongst those who study ethics seriously. The intial attraction lies in the simplicity of the theory (if X is good, then more of X is better), and the fact that it tracks our intuitions about what is right and what is wrong in a large class of cases.

Originally posted by bbarr
Actually, you'll find very few advocates of Utilitarianism amongst those who study ethics seriously. The intial attraction lies in the simplicity of the theory (if X is good, then more of X is better), and the fact that it tracks our intuit ...[text shortened]... about what is right and what is wrong in a large class of cases.

Originally posted by bbarr
Actually, you'll find very few advocates of Utilitarianism amongst those who study ethics seriously. The intial attraction lies in the simplicity of the theory (if X is good, then more of X is better), and the fact that it tracks our intuitions about what is right and what is wrong in a large class of cases.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I always look at your sentences very carefully.

bbarr: " ... you'll find very few advocates of Utilitarianism amongst those who study ethics seriously."

Do you agree with the following statement :

" ... you'll find very few advocates of Utilitarianism amongst those who study ethics. "

I don't know whether that second statement is true, and I have no idea how to go about finding whether it is true. I deal mostly with people who study ethics seriously, who've read and contribute to the literature, who teach courses on ethics, etc. I'm sure there are thousands of times as many people who are interested in ethics, have taken a course in ethics, or may independently dabble in the field, than there are people who are truly intellectually invested in the field. I know from experience, however, that at the beginning of the introductory ethics courses I've taught, students come in as either utilitarians, Divine-command theorists, or cultural relativists. Unfortunately, the proportion of cultural relativists seems to recently be increasing.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
This is what got Kissinger and Nixon in trouble. Right? I'm in my learning mode for the moment. Not wanting to argue at all.

Make any kind of a deal based on totally "pragmatic" reasoning?

The reason I ask is that I'm in kind of the same fix they faced right now. (see my other post).

Originally posted by bbarr
Sorry to say I don't know enough about the way Kissinger and Nixon reasoned to determine whether they were operating from a utilitarian viewpoint. But from what I know of Kissinger, I doubt he thought that any actions were strictly forbidden. I suspect that he thought that any action could be justified, if it furthered either the national interests (however ...[text shortened]... cidal campaign far outweighs any privation the world would have experienced had it not occurred.