4 ms·
Those examples are hilariously egregious, yeah! It's slightly taboo in polite conversation to see increased utility there, yep. Thanks for the kind words, too.
by emn13 5y ago
Those examples are hilariously egregious, yeah! It's slightly taboo in polite conversation to see increased utility there, yep. Thanks for the kind words, too.
- samhw 5y agoNo problem! And yeah, I had a moral philosophy professor who had endless examples like that, including that one. They were hilarious and so intuitively potent, I just wish I could remember more of them. He could spend a full 5-10 minutes in a lecture just retailing dozens of those ridiculous counter-examples. (It was especially funny because he was a very urbane old Oxonian professor - think Richard Dawkins for a pretty close analogue to his general mien - whom you wouldn't expect to start enthusiastically talking about gang rape.)
- philipkglass 5y agoPhilosophy professor John Holbo had a blog post about ridiculously whimsical scenarios in philosophy under the delightful title Occam's Phaser: https://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/25/occams-phaser/ https://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/25/occams-phaser/ There are good examples in the comments too, though I mostly recall it for getting into a heated argument with someone making utilitarian arguments for torture.
- samhw 5y agoInteresting, thanks! My position on the whole 'using moral intuitions in applied cases to disprove fundamental moral theories' is basically what I said in this thread: https://twitter.com/samziz/status/1412198411579887622 https://twitter.com/samziz/status/1412198411579887622 Incidentally I wouldn't agree with utilitarian arguments for torture, but not - necessarily - because I don't agree with utilitarianism. I think it's certainly possible to make higher-order or rule-utilitarian arguments against torture, within the parameters of utilitarianism.