3 ms·

> Unless the terrorist attack provided greater utility than preventing it, then you wouldn't want to stop it. Utilitarianism is real worrying, isn't it? Again,

• ianleeclark 7y ago
  > Again, it depends on what your goal is. Well, as I've said multiple times, we're talking about Utilitarianism, so the goal is always utility maximization. > Utilitarianism is as worrying as moral relativism, and I don't see people worried about that either. Plenty of people are justifiably terrified about moral relativism.
  • Brave-Steak 7y ago
    > Well, as I've said multiple times, we're talking about Utilitarianism, so the goal is always utility maximization. Am I talking to a wall? Utility isn't some general concept that automatically applies to everything. Utility of what? For me, utility maximization in that situation would be saving the lives of all the people in the WTC towers. For Bush it might be "how can I justify a war in two countries that have nothing to do with 9/11?". For you, it might be to waste my time with general questions that have nothing to do with anything. There needs to be a goal to which utility must be maximized if you're thinking in utilitarian terms. Utility maximization isn't the goal, it's the method by which a goal is achieved or the metric by which success in achieving a goal is measured, whether's maximum happiness, maximum number of people killed, maximum number of people pissed off, or whatever else. It is not the goal in and of itself. Everybody has values and goals and preferences - utilitarianism is the application of utility maximization to these values, goals and preferences.