4 ms·
As an act utilitarian, the utilitarian was trying to evaluate the consequences of the act, not a rule that could be followed in multiple instances. Therefore, c
by HWR_14 3y ago
As an act utilitarian, the utilitarian was trying to evaluate the consequences of the act, not a rule that could be followed in multiple instances. Therefore, credibly claiming that the act will be a secret removes any consideration of motivating other people or being judged by other people, etc. (Missing from the story was a promise by the mugger not to repeat this with the utilitarian every day).
- jefftk 3y agoI don't see why the utilitarian should trust a mugger's promises of secrecy or non-replicability though?
- hamishrayner 3y agoThe mugger is a Deontologist in this scenario and therefore does not lie. If the utilitarian couldn't trust the mugger's promises, the whole scenario would fall apart as they couldn't trust the mugger's promise to cut off their finger.
- jefftk 3y agoHow does the utilitarian know this? Any morality needs to take into account our uncertainty about claims other people make.
- sigilis 3y agoThe mugger has a lapel pin denoting himself as a deontological agent. Lapel pins in these fantasies cannot be forged, I guess.
- jefftk 3y agoIf we're assuming unforgeable moral-method pins I don't think we should expect intuitions generated in this sort of thought experiment to be a good guide to what we should actually think or do.
- thecyborganizer 3y agoThe mugger is a deontologist, right? We're already assuming that he'll keep his promises.
- robertlagrant 3y agoI mean, he's a mugger. Clearly doesn't take his deontology too seriously.
- schoen 3y agoBut notably not threatening or committing violence toward anyone else!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]