|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,235
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Perhaps we just disagree because I think your expectations and the way you use moral theory is unrealistic and faulty. You think of utilitarianism as irrelevant because you can fantasize scenarios where you think it condones an action which you think is morally bad. Using your logic, I should then think that a rule like "thou shalt not kill" is completely invalid in every moral situation because I can fantasize that I might be the victim of one of these psychopaths you dreamed up earlier and he will kill me unless I kill him first. I don't think killing my would-be murderer in self-defense is morally wrong.
But does the possibility of that scenario mean the idea "thou shalt not kill" has no moral merit? Of course not. In the right context, in my general day-to-day life, "thou shalt not kill" makes a lot of sense. In the ten commandments, that rule validates itself by being a rule laid on us by God. Utilitarianism does not validate itself that way. It validates itself only through its desirable consequences. If we don't desire those consequences, there is no God that tells us we have to apply utilitarianism. We can choose not to.
As I've mentioned, and as far as I know, utilitarianism is generally used when normal laws and moral rules fail to guide or fail to be fair or give us the desired consequences. As an example, think of a mine cave in. One hundred miners are caught in the mine and between them and freedom, there is a pile of rock rubble. The miners will die soon because there is poisonous gas in the mine. People outside the mine have dynamite and can blow away the rubble, saving the one hundred. But there is also a hurt miner stuck in the rubble. They can see that he is unconscious, but alive, but they cannot free him without the other hundred workers dying. In other words, you can save one hundred miners, but in doing so, you have to kill one.
Should a situation like this arise, the law would probably doom these hundred miners because saving them involves murder. God's rule of "thou shalt not kill" would also doom these 100 miners. They still would, even if the hurt miner was awake and asked to be blown up in order to save his friends. As a result, many would probably consider them invalid and think of a utilitarian approach as more valid. But even if they think of the law and commandments as invalid in that situation, does that mean they always are? The point is you can fantasize scenarios that invalidate most moral theories, just as you have for utilitarianism. Yet you argue as if your criticism only applies to utilitarianism.
|
Strictly speaking, "thou shalt not kill" as a moral principle is invalidated by the examples you provided. Actually, it's also invalidated by much simpler examples like war or execution. Clearly something more nuanced than that is needed, which I think is generally what is actually put into practice.
I spoke before about a fundamental value for innocent human life, and I think that is more in line with the morality we use on a day to day basis. It works around both the scenarios you provided: if someone is attacking you then you have the right to defend your innocent human life against the threat, and if you have to choose between 100 innocent deaths vs 1 then the verdict is obvious. In addition, and unlike the utilitarian idea to reduce suffering, it can also account for the scenarios I came up with before in which you'd kill someone without causing any suffering. It would still be wrong to take an innocent human life. I think that's a more honest approach to how we feel about murder.
Once again, it's not just a matter of what I can fantasize. The challenge is to provide a serious moral distinction between killing a human fetus vs killing other humans. Thus to apply a different standard to fetuses than that which you would apply to other humans is not a serious solution to that dilemma.
Quote:
|
Another point, then, is that we both agree we have morals "built in". We have a gut feeling of right and wrong. The way you argue, you would think there are actually people who are utilitarian in everything they do. That is entirely unrealistic; of course people don't use utilitarianism like that. No people use any moral theory like that. They are human with built in morals, like you and I. They can use utilitarianism as a guide when a moral dilemma presents itself. Note that I write "guide" and not deitic authority. As previously mentioned, utilitarianism makes sense when consequences are good. When the net consequences of applied utilitarianism are bad, you use that to argue against the appliance of utilitarianism, just as you do with other moral rules or theories, f.ex in the miner scenario mentioned above.
|
By what standard are the results 'good' or 'bad?' Once again, this removes the need for any moral theory altogether.
Quote:
If you're wondering why I think killing is wrong, I should mention that I think killing is usually wrong (not necessarily always). To summarize quickly; I think killing fellow members of society is, generally speaking, counter to my nature as a human being and I think it is damaging behaviour to society. Society is built up by people who cooperate and benefit from that cooperation (otherwise, why make society at all?) and, unfortunately, people who exploit that cooperation. We should make society so that it promotes cooperation and the long term quality of life of its people and so that it demotes exploitation and behaviour which is harmful to our cooperation and the quality of life of the people. Those who wish to exploit their society with anti-social, harmful behaviour, like murderers, should not be able to do so and still reap all the benefits that society gives them. Basically, all members of society should consider themselves to have a social contract. We agree to give up some freedoms (like the freedom to murder) for the greater good of all participants in society. The freedoms we give up, in other words the laws we make, should be so that if we all follow them, we all benefit from them and the quality of life increases for all.
So I value my nature as a human being and obligations that come with cooperation and society. As social animals with social instincts, the two very much go hand in hand. And, like a utilitarian, I value happiness (ex. I wish for human cooperation, society, to maximize the long term quality of life for those who cooperate) and I think suffering is bad.
In light of all of this, I think of the average mother as someone who contributes to society and as someone who has earned society's protection and as someone whose quality of life (happiness) could probably be maximized if given the choice to abort. I think a law allowing for abortion is the best way to maximize the long term quality of life for members of society.
As I am an atheist and don't believe we are judged by anyone but ourselves and our peers, there is no right answer, only opinions and consequences. In other words, if you disagree, that's fine with me.
|
I won't bore you with more scenarios to consider, but I'll simply point out that the social contract also falls short of accounting for the normal human's aversion to killing other humans. Remove the social implications and the crime of killing another innocent person is not lessened in the slightest.
...
I'll mention that fundamentally I am coming from the p.o.v. of someone who is pro-choice but has lost faith in the moral arguments from that side. My position at this point feels like one that brushes aside moral issues in favor of practical concerns. I don't necessarily have a moral code that will provide an air-tight solution to all of these issues but that doesn't lessen my objections imo.
|