Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
When I constructed the example in my mind, I was thinking of death in the first scenario as a consequence from getting shot by a bullet fired from a rifle and, in the second scenario, as a consequence of getting tortured. If you can accept that, then the question becomes whether or not one action is worse than the other when the result is the same. If you can't, then the example doesn't work and can be safely disregarded.
|
The consequence of death is equal, yes. However, I do not only regard the final outcome as all consequences of one action. As I am an utilitarianist I believe that an action is good if it leads to more happiness/pleasure than unhappiness/pain. This means the total pleasure and/or pain that the action causes throughout time.
Would the suffering of the animal be equal in both the cases I would say that the moral implications of both scenarios would be equal. In fact, I would argue that, given the conditions that in both cases the corpse of the animal is treated likewise, the best, most moral scenario would be the one with the sadist as he/she recieves pleasure from the action.
This is under the condition that it is a lone, isolated event and that the pleasure that the sadist recieves does not mean that he/she has had positive experiences on animal cruelty making him/her more likely to perform it again. (This, I would say, is likely the case.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
The bolded statement, how can you say that this notion is always based on feelings? That's not a statement which describes what I see in the justice system where I live. 
You write yourself that punishment can have positive effect in that it can prevent more crime. Isn't that also a notion behind punishment? |
I argue that the notion that immoral actions should always be punished, for punishment's sake alone, is based on feelings rather than logic. That is of course assuming that a moral/immoral action is defined in the way I define it (as described above).
When saying that, I am making the assumption (a justified one, if you ask me, but that's just me) that:
A1: Crime causes an increase in unhappiness/pain and a decrease in happiness/pleasure. (This would of course depend on the specific crime, I would argue that some legal actions are still immoral and some illegal ones are moral.)
Hence:
A2: Less crime means less increase in unhappiness/pain and less decrease in happiness/pain. Per my system of morality: positive consequences.
B: Punishment works in a preventive matter by eg. scaring people into not commiting crimes or stating an example. (Of course punishment isn't enough, we also need eg. theraphy.) Due to A2, these are positive consequences.