Hypothetical question for Utilitarians.

[valenzuela]

I made a thread asking if its ok to bribe the refferee on the quarter-final of a wolrd cup match between Brazil and Sweden. The thread was ignored.
The thing is that Brazil has like 200 millions habitants while Sweden has only 9 million ppl.
On top of that Brazil is a country with a lot of poverty, and ppl simply love football there, the boost they get each time Brazil wins a world cup match is unbeliable.
On the other hand Sweden is a rich country and ppl dont really get that happier if sweden win.
So, any utilitarian should support the idea of bribing the refferre so that he favors Brazil over Sweden.

Am I wrong? Or am I right?

[Iconoclastic]

But Brazilians'll be much less happy when they found out they only won cuz they bribed the ref instead of winning fairly.

[valenzuela]

says who? Argentinians love the hand of god.

[Iconoclastic]

But they don't love bribing the referee. That's completely different from a blown call.

[bkholdem]

There is more than one type of utilitarian. Here's a wikipedia exerpt:

Act utilitarianism vs. rule utilitarianism
Main article: Act Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions, and from that, choose to do what we believe will generate the most happiness. A rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he looks at what would happen if it was constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation: individual actions or rules?

To illustrate, consider the following thought experiment, which can be compared with the survival lottery scenario and the Trolley problem: A surgeon has five terminal patients: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, one needs a heart, and two need kidneys. A sixth, non-terminal patient just came in to have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the others?

An act utilitarian would consider the probable consequences of sacrificing the sixth patient on that particular occasion, while a rule utilitarian would look at the consequences of performing such a sacrifice every time such a situation arises. One potential rule would be: "whenever a surgeon could kill one relatively healthy person in order to transplant his organs to more than one other person who needs them, he ought to do so." If instituted in society, this rule would obviously lead to bad consequences. Relatively healthy people would stop going to the hospital, many risky transplant operations would be performed, etc. Therefore, a rule utilitarian would say we should implement the opposite rule: "don't harvest healthy people's organs to give them to sick people." For a rule utilitarian, therefore, it would be immoral for the surgeon to kill the sixth man. Of course, it is possible that the act utilitarian would decide not to sacrifice the sixth man, but most would agree that rule utiltarianism would provide stronger reasons not to.

Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

[theblackkeys]

I was just about to say this.

The problem with Utilitarianism (theone valenzuela is talking about) is that it requires calculating benefits or goodness for parties other than yourself. Not everyone has the same priorities. It also doesn't respect individual rights.

[arahant]

That's why Brazil does so well, man...someone agrees with you.
Plus, they use Argentine ringers.

[Propertarian]

No. A culture in which fair play occurs will probably produce more utilitarianism over the long haul than one in which fair play does not occur.

Also, one could doubt whether or not this kind of behavior would be discovered, ruining the entire credibility of the world cup.

All people, not just consequentalists, need to be thinking about unintended consequences.

[wazz]

[ QUOTE ]
A culture in which fair play occurs will probably produce more utilitarianism over the long haul than one in which fair play does not occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

Utilitarianism and deontology are like the communism and fascism of ethical horseshoes.....