|
|
|
|
#1
06-17-2007, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: is there a question a utilitarian cannot answer?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I know a lot of questions utilitarians don't like to answer. Jeff gets more pleasure from raping his daughter than the hurt he inflicts upon her. Him performing that act increases the happiness in the world. Is he morally obligated to rape his daughter? Should we as a society do everything we can to see to it that he rapes her? [/ QUOTE ] These type of questions are so, so easy for utilitarians, although I agree they are often uncomfortable with them for some reason. On one side of the equation, you have the happiness that the dad gets from raping her. On the other side, you have her suffering, PLUS the suffering of everyone else in society who now has to live in a society where their father may potentially rape them with no consequence. The utilitarian locks up the father, no sweat. [/ QUOTE ] The fathers happiness is more than all of this put together. [ QUOTE ] A much tougher question is something more like "Everyone in the world thinks rape is just fine, they rape each other all the time, except this one woman. She doesn't like rape at all. Is it ok to rape her?" Its a better question, but not necessarily a fatal blow to any utilitarian worth his salt. Two ways to go about it, off the top of my head: 1) We pretty much have that type of society now, we just switch the "everyone loves rape" with "everyone hates rape" and do the same with the small minority. And whats the result? Majority rule. [/ QUOTE ] Majority rule being a bad idea doesn't make utilitarianism a good idea. [ QUOTE ] 2) Even though everyone may like rape, they may also have some other, overriding concern that would cause them suffering to find out that someone who didn't mind rape was raped. If this makes them 'suffer' enough, then raping her is obviously -EV. [/ QUOTE ] What if they don't? 6 people on and island 5 guys who love gang rape and have no psychological problems with it and one woman. it's not just ok for them to rape it is immoral for them not to. 
|
|
#2
06-17-2007, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: is there a question a utilitarian cannot answer?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I know a lot of questions utilitarians don't like to answer. Jeff gets more pleasure from raping his daughter than the hurt he inflicts upon her. Him performing that act increases the happiness in the world. Is he morally obligated to rape his daughter? Should we as a society do everything we can to see to it that he rapes her? [/ QUOTE ] These type of questions are so, so easy for utilitarians, although I agree they are often uncomfortable with them for some reason. On one side of the equation, you have the happiness that the dad gets from raping her. On the other side, you have her suffering, PLUS the suffering of everyone else in society who now has to live in a society where their father may potentially rape them with no consequence. The utilitarian locks up the father, no sweat. [/ QUOTE ] The fathers happiness is more than all of this put together. [ QUOTE ] A much tougher question is something more like "Everyone in the world thinks rape is just fine, they rape each other all the time, except this one woman. She doesn't like rape at all. Is it ok to rape her?" Its a better question, but not necessarily a fatal blow to any utilitarian worth his salt. Two ways to go about it, off the top of my head: 1) We pretty much have that type of society now, we just switch the "everyone loves rape" with "everyone hates rape" and do the same with the small minority. And whats the result? Majority rule. [/ QUOTE ] Majority rule being a bad idea doesn't make utilitarianism a good idea. [ QUOTE ] 2) Even though everyone may like rape, they may also have some other, overriding concern that would cause them suffering to find out that someone who didn't mind rape was raped. If this makes them 'suffer' enough, then raping her is obviously -EV. [/ QUOTE ] What if they don't? 6 people on and island 5 guys who love gang rape and have no psychological problems with it and one woman. it's not just ok for them to rape it is immoral for them not to. [/ QUOTE ] Right, I think the utilitarian can just say "Fine, if his happiness really is more than all of that put together, then its fine. But then again, if that were true, you wouldn't be using rape in your hypothetical, would you? Since the prerequisite is that none of us thinks rape is that big of a deal. So either your hypothetical is BS or I can safely say 'rape is fine' without fear of repercussions."
|
|
#4
06-17-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: is there a question a utilitarian cannot answer?
It's a more likely hypothetical than the train that'll kill 4 vs 1.
|
|
#5
06-22-2007, 12:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: is there a question a utilitarian cannot answer?
[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of questions utilitarians don't like to answer. Jeff gets more pleasure from raping his daughter than the hurt he inflicts upon her. Him performing that act increases the happiness in the world. Is he morally obligated to rape his daughter? Should we as a society do everything we can to see to it that he rapes her? [/ QUOTE ] I am a utilitarian and it is quite easy for me to answer this question. The answer is NO he is not obligated to rape his daugher. The answer to the second question is NO as well. That was very easy.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
