Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre
Except I did calculate it and you just didn't like that answer because it contradicts your narrative.
Morality is born from empathy and sympathy. We don't like seeing others suffer. We wouldn't want to kill somebody else who is suffering because we know that they might not want to die. Which would be causing suffering.
|
... You're all over the place.
First I'm straw manning you by bringing it back to suffering vs happiness and next you basically confirm that framework with this post.
You can't say "you did the calculation" as the entire premise of the scenario was that somehow we know for a fact that killing him will be a net positive in terms of suffering caused vs suffering alleviated. It's an unrealistic hypothetical scenario, but then again so is the trolly problem and every other utilitarian thought experiment.
You had a problem with killing him not just based on suffering but on robbing him of the choice of whether to live. The same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply if he was considering suicide. Yet you wouldn't see that as wrong, because it's his choice. So already we're introducing elements other than pure suffering vs happiness into the moral equation.
Which is my point. Not that empathy doesn't inform morality, but it's not the only source that we draw from when making moral decisions.
It's not that I don't see the basic appeal of utilitarian thinking. It's just too simplistic to capture morality in its entirety.