3 ms·
No, those unrealistic scenarios make it easier to see the problems without having to deal with all the real world complications. Many of the examples just try t
by danbruc 5y ago
No, those unrealistic scenarios make it easier to see the problems without having to deal with all the real world complications. Many of the examples just try to point out that utilitarianism allows you to treat one group as badly as you want as long as you overcompansate their suffering by just making another group happy enough. It's a stupid idea in its pure form.
- lanternfish 5y agoA utilitarian would absolutely say that causing one group severely negative utility is worth a corresponding positive utility in another group. However, they'd also say that these are useless examples to apply knee-jerk aesthetic analysis to, because they're practically impossible. The aversions we have to this kind of inhumane utility juggling are because we instinctually recongize the second order and knock-on effects without needing to specify them. Dehumanization, inequality, precedence - these are all utility-real things which a responsible utilitarian incorporates into their utility calculus as major negative impactors. When you strip the situation of any practical relevance, of course the conclusions are 'stupid' because the criteria you apply to determine that stupidity are based on a practical reality.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]