3 ms·
These thoughts scare me. Utilitarianism is far from perfect. For instance, would we as a society designate 5% of women as lacking right to their own body and al
by omalleyt 10y ago
These thoughts scare me. Utilitarianism is far from perfect. For instance, would we as a society designate 5% of women as lacking right to their own body and allow any man to have them when he wishes? If the pleasure the men gained is greater than the suffering of the women, utilitarians say yes. And even if you say "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater," is that REALLY the reason that the action I stated above is wrong? Or is it...that women have a moral right to their body that is not subject to the whims of what is best for society
- navait 10y agoWhat you are referring to are "Utility Monster" arguments. I've yet to see a version of the Utility Monster that would actually happen in the real world. The better ones involve a computer that rules the world and is given a metric that seems good, but leads to bad consequences when it is maximized at the expense of everything else. But we aren't ruled by such a computer - we're still ruled by people. > "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater" IMO, this is obviously true. Why wouldn't it be the real reason?
- hx87 10y ago> And even if you say "No, because the suffering of the women will inevitably be greater," is that REALLY the reason that the action I stated above is wrong? Yes, that really is the reason it is wrong. Men aren't utility monsters, the existence (even hypothetically) of utility monsters is doubtful, and it is harmful to optimize a system of morality for situations that have an infinitismal probability of being realized.