Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
that is again rejecting the scenario. In this case we know for a fact there will be more suffering than happiness produced by him continuing to live. That's literally the entire point of the scenario... To see if killing him would still seem wrong even if the calculation of suffering vs happiness leans that way in this case.
|
Then he could kill himself, it's not my burden to carry.
Quote:
|
you could then say that for instance by not killing the 1 child to save 100 people, you're not responsible for those 100 deaths. Because you didn't directly cause them. You just failed to act.
|
Not really. His suffering already existed and you didn't cause it.
This is an event you have the ability to prevent where people are completely dependent on you. The other situation he's not. Unless we're talking assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Quote:
|
The utilitarian calculus typically analyzes results above all else. Inaction can lead to more harm than action.
|
Yeah, but I never said I was a utilitarian. That's just what you used to describe me.
Quote:
|
That's exactly what I've been saying. Not that suffering doesn't factor into morality. But there's more to it than that. There are ideas of rights, fairness, autonomy, purity, etc.
|
All of those things account for causing suffering and happiness.
Even then, that's kind of a lie. You were saying that morality is cultural.
Quote:
|
all of the thought experiments that are typically used to argue about utilitarian ethics are typically unrealistic and over simplified. The reason for this is that it helps isolate variables as to why we find something wrong. That's all I was doing.
|
No, you were over simplifying things to fit the narrative that my views are overly simple and rejecting any possible nuance I throw at it.