Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting

[UpstateMatt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I follow this entire thread / Justin's line of discussion - are we simply talking about the merits of pure utilitarianism here?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Whatever criterion you use, if there is no set of weights and balances to measure utility, then your set of criterion is logically indefensible.

I am not 100% utilitarian, although I'm pretty close. But what I'm talking about is any form of reasonable logic should lead someone to being at least 1% utilitarian.

If you wouldn't shoot an innocent person in the foot to save a billion lives from severe suffering and ultimately death, then you have some serious problems, especially if you think the Christian God is on your side.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree, in principle. Obviously, there are utilitarian and communitarian trade-offs that are so small and do so much good that it becomes ridiculous to argue against them.

However, this thread is using the extreme hypothetical to prove a general principle. You seem to be now arguing that there is a difference between the extreme hypothetical and the day-to-day implications. We can't draw the utilitarian line - if 1% is beyond-questionable reasonable, then 2% is hard to argue against, no? But at the same time, killing 9,999 innocent people to save 10,000 others is equally beyond-question unreasonable. If the thought-provoking part of this is "where is the line," then there is no answer.

But if it's not about the line, and it's not about the extreme example proving a general, universal priniciple, then i'm still confused.

And i don't mean any of this in a harsh way - i'm very interested in such questions, and i'm trying to work out the value of using extreme examples in such discussions.

matt

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
and i'm trying to work out the value of using extreme examples in such discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because some people haven't thought through all the steps themselves, and don't realize that they are really at least 1% utilitarian, even if they are against utilitarianism in general.

I'm not sure exactly what David was getting at, but that's what I was getting at.

It was mostly in response to BluffThis who seems to claim to not even be that 1% utilitarian, although I could be wrong about that.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
ut at the same time, killing 9,999 innocent people to save 10,000 others is equally beyond-question unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I don't agree with that.

David gave some random number generator death example in the past. X random people will die quickly and painlessly. You can press a button to change X to Y, where new people will randomly be chosen.

I will press the button so long as Y>X, even if Y=9,999 and X=10,000.

[UpstateMatt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ut at the same time, killing 9,999 innocent people to save 10,000 others is equally beyond-question unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I don't agree with that.

David gave some random number generator death example in the past. X random people will die quickly and painlessly. You can press a button to change X to Y, where new people will randomly be chosen.

I will press the button so long as Y>X, even if Y=9,999 and X=10,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty strongly utilitarianism. And it implies all the wierd examples that go with it: if you and someone else were each holding a gun (such that you couldn't kill each other) and they said they would slap child X and then kill child Y if you didn't immediately kill yourself, then you would kill yourself? I mean, where is your line on the 100% utilitarian end?

matt

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ut at the same time, killing 9,999 innocent people to save 10,000 others is equally beyond-question unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I don't agree with that.

David gave some random number generator death example in the past. X random people will die quickly and painlessly. You can press a button to change X to Y, where new people will randomly be chosen.

I will press the button so long as Y>X, even if Y=9,999 and X=10,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty strongly utilitarianism. And it implies all the wierd examples that go with it: if you and someone else were each holding a gun (such that you couldn't kill each other) and they said they would slap child X and then kill child Y if you didn't immediately kill yourself, then you would kill yourself? I mean, where is your line on the 100% utilitarian end?

matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I obviously value my life more than a random person's. I suppose that's greedy and arguably immoral, but it's also honest.

I think evolution has programmed us to have some kind of importance hierarchy.

You > significant other > kids > other family > friends > community > pets > unknown people of same race > unknown people of other race > complex animals > non-complex animals

Most people's hierarchy is probably very similar to that. I'm not saying that is mine, and it's obviously a gross simplification. But evolution has programmed us with a strong sense of community, and with good reason.

Edit: But random person's life = random person's life no matter how yous lice it.