by that logic it's "immoral on a certain level" to give your kid a flu shot

I can say that because I did do the calculation. Robbing the homeless person of that choice (or illusion of choice for those that get anal about it) causes suffering because they could be happier enduring their suffering even if death would cause less suffering than living. Ultimately you're not causing their suffering by letting them live either. They are causing their own suffering by letting themselves live. Or something else is causing their suffering which of course is a better alternative to investigate over killing the homeless guy but of course that gets ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I've literally explained how it would be harmful 3 times now. How it does actually fit in suffering vs. happiness. You're just ignoring it or dismissing it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Of course not, people like to use cultural norms, faux science, religion and etc. to justify the harm they do rather than face themselves. Just because people use outside things to inform their moral decisions doesn't make it moral.

No, you're just over simplifying human suffering to push that narrative while I, who holds this belief, am not.

Lesser of two evils.

Ha, got it in early!

It's immoral on a certain level to fart on an elevator but that doesn't make you blatantly evil because I don't think human suffering is as simple as you make it therefor neither is morality.

maybe you're just misunderstanding the actual scenario. It's literally built into the scenario that in this case we somehow know for a fact that with this man, more suffering will be alleviated than caused by his death.

So responding "maybe it won't" is just rejecting the scenario entirely, not answering it.

You did prove my point that there's more to it than just a calculation on suffering by bringing up the problem that you are infringing on his right to choose whether to live or die. This is something that tends to bother us regardless of any suffering vs happiness calculation.

As I mentioned, if the man were to contemplate suicide, the same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply. Yet we wouldn't see that as wrong because it's his choice. So there is another element at play beyond that calculation.

I don't think either of those are immoral. In fact I think the shot thing is actually the right thing to do.

I never said "maybe it won't". I said maybe the homeless person is happier enduring that suffering. I also said that it's not causing suffering to let him live while killing him is.

No, I actually didn't you're just rejecting my explanations. It bothers us because it's harmful to take someone's choice away. Also, because I already mentioned, just killing him is already immoral on a level no matter the suffering.

Because causing suffering to yourself is different from causing suffering to somebody else. You're also leaving out, again, how he could be happier enduring suffering than dying.

The scenario is unrealistically over simplified in an attempt to paint my belief as overly simplified. The only realistic example you can give is if I support assisted suicide or euthanasia and I do. It's not overwhelmingly 'good' it's a morally grey area because suffering and happiness is in no way nearly as simple as you are making it out to be in an attempt to paint this belief as simple.

Of course because the amount of harm it prevents compared to how much it does is disparate.

Edit: And you seem to be treating morality as a complete dichotomy when I don't.

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.

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.

The utilitarian calculus typically analyzes results above all else. Inaction can lead to more harm than action.



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 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.

Lucem needs Michael.
https://videos.files.wordpress.com/F...d.original.jpg

Then he could kill himself, it's not my burden to carry.

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.

Yeah, but I never said I was a utilitarian. That's just what you used to describe me.

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.

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.