Spirituality
18 Jun 06
25 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewellThe fact that anyone (or a society) can (wrongly) claim that a particular course of action will generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number is not an argument against utilitarianism.
The fact that anyone (or a society) can (wrongly) claim that a particular course of action will generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number is not an argument against utilitarianism.
It may be that no one ever correctly calculates the course of action that will create the greatest happiness of the greatest number; utilitarianism me to "rule-utilitarianism", but there are good arguments against this as well (Anscombe, etc.)
Exactly.
The problem with utilitarianism, as No1 has pointed out, is that it leads us to completely counter-intuitive conclusions.
Any system will lead to counter-intuitive conclusions for many people. How many people intuitively feel that black people are inferior and should be treated as such? How many intuitively feel that Christianity (or Islam) is the best way for all people and should be the basis of law? These intuitive ideas are at odds with Fundamental Rights theory, for example. That doesn't make Fundamental Rights a poor basis for a society.
I maintain the position that says killing one person for ten others' benefit will not as a rule lead to the greatest happiness unless the one person is ok with it (and this is a dangerous zone too...how do we know the person wasn't coerced or brainwashed?). It leads to insecurity, fear and rage in the populace.
How about sacrificing soldiers in war for the benefit of civilians? Compare that with the "killing gramps for the sick children" idea. In both cases, people are sacrificed for the benefit of others.
I see utilitarianism as the natural ideal for moral systems; the one which is most intuitively in touch with humanity and the varying concepts of morality. Other systems are various attempts to implement utilitarianism, even if the people who promote these systems don't realize it. The Ten Commandments, Fundamental Rights, etc are systems that describe WHAT we should or shouldn't do. Utilitarianism is the WHY.
25 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungShould we fatally transplant both kidneys from one healthy person to ensure the survival of two other people who both need one kidney?
[b]The fact that anyone (or a society) can (wrongly) claim that a particular course of action will generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number is not an argument against utilitarianism.
Exactly.
The problem with utilitarianism, as No1 has pointed out, is that it leads us to completely counter-intuitive conclusions. [ ...[text shortened]... etc are systems that describe WHAT we should or shouldn't do. Utilitarianism is the WHY.
25 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeDepends on if the one person volunteered or not.
Should we fatally transplant both kidneys from one healthy person to ensure the survival of two other people who both need one kidney?
EDIT - And if he was in his right mind, as determined by psychological analysis.
EDIT2 - If in doubt, then no.
25 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut, wouldn't there be a potential utilitarian justification for the coercive transplant, irrespective of consent?
Depends on if the one person volunteered or not.
EDIT - And if he was in his right mind, as determined by psychological analysis.
EDIT2 - If in doubt, then no.
25 Jun 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeSure. You didn't offer such a justification, however. Anyway, I think I am a Rule Utilitarianist. The rule would be - don't do it. There would have to be a damn good justification to break the rule.
But, wouldn't there be a potential utilitarian justification for the coercive transplant, irrespective of consent?
25 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think the putative justification is fairly obvious: the survival of two people is better than the survival of one, even taking into account the terror of the latter and the guilt of the former.
Sure. You didn't offer such a justification, however. Anyway, I think I am a Rule Utilitarianist. The rule would be - don't do it. There would have to be a damn good justification to break the rule.
I don't think the consequences are worth it, myself; but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, in practice, I doubt this would be a workable rule.
Incidentally, are you a rule utilitarian as opposed to an act utilitarian because you think it brings the greatest good for the greatest number?
25 Jun 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThat justification was taken into account in my analysis. You asked if there would be a "potential" justification. Of course there are justifications that might make breaking the rule worthwhile. It would be all justifications that I haven't analyzed yet.
I think the putative justification is fairly obvious: the survival of two people is better than the survival of one, even taking into account the terror of the latter and the guilt of the former.
I don't think the consequences are worth it, myself; but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, in practice, I doubt this would be a workable rule.
Incidentally, ...[text shortened]... ed to an act utilitarian because you think it brings the greatest good for the greatest number?
Nonetheless, in practice, I doubt this would be a workable rule.
I assume you meant the rule where you kill the one for the benefit of the two.
Incidentally, are you a rule utilitarian as opposed to an act utilitarian because you think it brings the greatest good for the greatest number?
Yes. Please note I am including future generations as well in the "greatest number".
25 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDo you think all objectionable utilitarianisms are simple utilitarianisms that are insufficiently subtle and comprehensive?
That justification was taken into account in my analysis. You asked if there would be a "potential" justification. Of course there are justifications that might make breaking the rule worthwhile. It would be all justifications that I haven't analyzed yet.
[b]Nonetheless, in practice, I doubt this would be a workable rule.
I assume you meant ...[text shortened]... /b]
Yes. Please note I am including future generations as well in the "greatest number".[/b]
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWhat's an objectionable utilitarianist? An act utilitarianist? If so, then yes. The best utilitarianism is rule utilitarianism with possible breaking of the rules if the situation warrants it, but this should be a rare and deeply analyzed event.
Do you think all objectionable utilitarianisms are simple utilitarianisms that are insufficiently subtle and comprehensive?
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by dottewellI wish people would actually read my posts. What I said is adding the words "in the long run" to the formulation made utilitarianism meaningless. Presumably any standard of morality is designed to give the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number in the long run including Divine Command (more people go to Heaven or wherever). Thus by restating utilitarianism in this manner you've made it so vague as to be useless as a moral guide. No one can predict with any certainty at all whether a particular moral choice will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number in the long run.
The fact that anyone (or a society) can (wrongly) claim that a particular course of action will generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number is not an argument against utilitarianism.
It may be that no one ever correctly calculates the course of action that will create the greatest happiness of the greatest number; utilitarianism me ...[text shortened]... to "rule-utilitarianism", but there are good arguments against this as well (Anscombe, etc.)
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWeigh it up. If there was a 100% certainty of the two transplanees recovering post-operation and having a high quality of life then perhaps yes. If the chances of them surviving are perhaps only 50%, but the donor has a 100% chance of survival with only one, then you'll be maximising the likelihood of protecting life by only transplanting one kidney.
Should we fatally transplant both kidneys from one healthy person to ensure the survival of two other people who both need one kidney?
As always, the donor stands the best chance of surviving and recovering from the surgery. it seems silly to transplant a healthy kidney from a healthy person into another healthy person if the recipient is less likely to survive the operation than the donor.
26 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderPresumably any standard of morality is designed to give the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number in the long run including Divine Command (more people go to Heaven or wherever).
I wish people would actually read my posts. What I said is adding the words "in the long run" to the formulation made utilitarianism meaningless. Presumably any standard of morality is designed to give the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number in the long run including Divine Command (more people go to Heaven or wherever). Thus by restating lar moral choice will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number in the long run.
It's amazing, but no religious person I've ever discussed this with will admit this.
EDIT - They seem to be uncomfortable placing anything, including happiness, over God's Will.
EDIT2 - This is why religious people are so scary. They've divorced their sense of morality from the welfare of living things and tied it to the will of some imaginary being.
26 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat doesn't take into account the fears of people who might need to go to a hospital or might someday need to (everyone), the rage and sorrow of the family of the old man, etc.
Weigh it up. If there was a 100% certainty of the two transplanees recovering post-operation and having a high quality of life then perhaps yes. If the chances of them surviving are perhaps only 50%, but the donor has a 100% chance of survival with only one, then you'll be maximising the likelihood of protecting life by only transplanting one kidney. ...[text shortened]... another healthy person if the recipient is less likely to survive the operation than the donor.
26 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf utilitarianism is openly acknowledged as the underlying basis of more practical moral guides like Fundamental Rights, then we will have something to fall back on when such moral systems become unclear - for example, suicide, abortion, and acts of war with respect to the Right to Life.
I wish people would actually read my posts. What I said is adding the words "in the long run" to the formulation made utilitarianism meaningless. Presumably any standard of morality is designed to give the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number in the long run including Divine Command (more people go to Heaven or wherever). Thus by restating lar moral choice will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number in the long run.