Righteous slaughter

Not *your* intuitions, I meant intuitions in general. You say utilitarianism doesn't correspond with our intuitions, and I say so much for intuitions. Why? Because utilitarianism makes rational sense, whereas intuitions are just here because the whole evolution thing that I won't bother spelling out again.

I can't keep saying the same thing to you: our Ethics is founded on many things, only one of which is some of our moral intuitions. The other thing that informs our Ethics is our sense of justice and fairness. Another thing that informs our ethics are our abilities, physical and cognitive. Another thing that informs our ethics are the particular circumstances from moral dilemma A and moral dilemma B. And another thing is that we live in the type of social groups we do with certain goals, namely to live safely and prosper (or flourish).

I really don't get it. Utilitarianism isn't our Ethics now. We don't subscribe to it. You want us to drop our Ethics, the one I'm trying to analyze, and adopt Utilitarianism. So, you have an argument to give, not simply to insist that we need to drop our intuitions and use only reason, as if this was obviously something better than using intuition. It's not. We are human beings, sophisticated animals living amongst one another, and part of our make-up is that we react emotionally. You want to factor things out like our emotions. But why should we? You give no argument. So, I've done my job: I've given an analysis of Ethics as it stands. Your job is to argue why it should be supplanted with Utilitarianism. You haven't done that. And merely proclaiming all the wonderful benefits of your view is not an argument. In fact, I think Utilitarianism is an abomination and the product of small minds. Now prove me wrong.

First, I would like to say that this thread title would be a great name for a Swedish death metal band(probably taken already...well I checked and according to the first pages of google it's not).

Now, on a more serious note.

Paradox617, re: post #1:

Killing in any manner is always immoral. It can be justified by circumstance, but it is never the best or right thing to do.

Apply golden rule.+Apply principal of universality.+Promote benefits, reduce harm.+Be logically consistent.= Then you have morality.

Okay, I might have gone a little overboard with the "product of small minds" part, but my point is that you're not giving me arguments for your beliefs, just your beliefs, and someone they are meant to stand on equal footing with my claims that I've given arguments for? How easy is that for you to do -- simply state an opposing view? This is not a fair discussion, where I lay out my argument you take ten seconds to write "you got it all wrong."

Wanabe,

Killing is always immoral is a claim you need to argue for, not simply assume. Your claim is also counter-intuitive, as we don't think it's immoral to kill someone in self-defense, when that person poses a mortal threat to you. So, in such cases, it's the best and the right thing to do.

More of the same on this forum. People assume positions and I do all the work of actually undermining their non-arguments.

-- Updated March 12th, 2012, 1:24 pm to add the following --

Wowbagger,

Here's a dilemma for you. What does your Utilitarianism tell us is morally acceptable?

Five gunmen break into my home, where I live with my wife and two children. They enter my son's room and and kill him. Now they're in the hall walking to my daughter's room. My wife and I are in the room down the hall. I have a semi-automatic rifle and I'm pretty sure that if I can get a jump on them I can manage to kill them before they get me. Given that there are five of them and only three of us left alive, does Utilitarianism say it's morally acceptable or unacceptable for me to kill the five gunmen?

I can't keep saying the same thing to you: our Ethics is founded on many things, only one of which is some of our moral intuitions. The other thing that informs our Ethics is our sense of justice and fairness. Another thing that informs our ethics are our abilities, physical and cognitive. Another thing that informs our ethics are the particular circumstances from moral dilemma A and moral dilemma B. And another thing is that we live in the type of social groups we do with certain goals, namely to live safely and prosper (or flourish).

You don't address the question whether it's smart to go about it that way. It's obvious that, if you've only thought about ethics in the terms you describe, you'll have a hard time seeing that it could be different. But imagine you had never heard of all the popular accounts of ethics, why would anyone then come up with so many pointless limitations that ethics would have to follow?

You give no argument.

I have given an outline of an argument, comprehensive enough to illustrate my general points. It's a bit unfortunate that we're having this discussion in two different threads, here and in the Zombie thread. Just to get you started on the arguments I brought forward again: My argument rests on suffering being bad. You can call this an "axiome", but it would be quite silly to deny it. If someone denies it, I challenge them to put a finger on a table and whack it with a hammer, then we can talk again.

Here's a dilemma for you. What does your Utilitarianism tell us is morally acceptable?

Five gunmen break into my home, where I live with my wife and two children. They enter my son's room and and kill him. Now they're in the hall walking to my daughter's room. My wife and I are in the room down the hall. I have a semi-automatic rifle and I'm pretty sure that if I can get a jump on them I can manage to kill them before they get me. Given that there are five of them and only three of us left alive, does Utilitarianism say it's morally acceptable or unacceptable for me to kill the five gunmen?

It's hard to give an answer without more details, but it seems safe to say that five people who randomly kill families would be responsible for quite a lot of future suffering, and when you add to that the fact that they want to kill your daughter, and probably also you and your wife, then it seems quite straightforward that taking them out would be a good thing.

But if you're concerned that utilitarianism may in some cases give the answer that "bad guys" should be let alive, even when they're about to do bad things, then I must concede that such cases could in theory happen. It would need to be quite specific, extreme circumstances, but if it really is the case that such an action will prevent the most suffering, then this action will be best.

Edit: I just saw that most of my reasons for preferring utilitarianism were given in my most recent post in the zombie thread, so you might not have read that at the time you responded to me here..

My argument rests on suffering being bad. You can call this an "axiome", but it would be quite silly to deny it. If someone denies it, I challenge them to put a finger on a table and whack it with a hammer, then we can talk again.

Yeah, I reject your axiom. I get bitten by a black mamba on my finger. You chop it off immediately. Painful? Sure. I suffer? Probably. It's going to hurt like a bitch for a while. Bad? Not at all. In fact, good -- you saved my life. Suffering has no moral intrinsic qualities. There's nothing there. It's just your sensibilities betraying your reasoning.

You're fond of thinking your Utilitarianism is more rational than other ethical theories, but in fact yours is the product of nothing but your emotions. You are not more rational than us -- but less so.

Fiveredapples,

Killing in any manner is always immoral. It can be justified by circumstance, but it is never the best or right thing to do.

You read that whole piece of information the first time, I assume. May be this time you will actually think about process it.


morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

justification: a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends.

The reason people think killing is moral is because it is justified killing.

we don't think it's immoral to kill someone in self-defense, when that person poses a mortal threat to you. So, in such cases, it's the best and the right thing to do.

First I don't know what "we" you are referring to... No the best and right thing to do is to stop the person from killing. It's practical to kill them.


I hope you can wrap your mind around the distinction here.

"More of the same on this forum. People assume positions and I do all the work of actually undermining their non-arguments." Indeed.

You read that whole piece of information the first time, I assume. May be this time you will actually think about process it.

morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

justification: a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends.

The reason people think killing is moral is because it is justified killing.

Oh, I processed it the first time, thanks.

You made a claim about the inherent immorality of killing. My response was "Says you". Well, says you and Kant, but I think you're both wrong. No matter. You owe an argument. That's right, you have to give arguments to counter-intuitive claims.

Morality is not merely conformity to the rules of right conduct. There are rules of right conduct in various areas -- e.g. eating etiquette, but you're not immoral if you talk with food in your mouth.

There are also all kinds of justification, but we're interested in moral justification, and when you're morally justified to do something, then you're not doing something immoral in doing so. Again, this follows if killing isn't inherently immoral, a premise nobody is granting you nor one which you've bothered to argue for. And the reason why you haven't is probably because you know you'd lose that debate...as better philosophers than you have already lost.

So, if a killing is justified, then it's not morally wrong (or 'immoral').

we don't think it's immoral to kill someone in self-defense, when that person poses a mortal threat to you. So, in such cases, it's the best and the right thing to do.

It's also not morally wrong to do it. But it would be morally wrong if killing were always morally wrong.

First I don't know what "we" you are referring to... No the best and right thing to do is to stop the person from killing. It's practical to kill them.

Unfortunately for you, we have mere mortals and whats the best thing to do is relative to what we're actually capable of doing. You might as well say, "It's best to dodge his bullets and hypnotize him to sleep." Now how useless would saying that be? Answer: as useless as saying 'stop the person from killing."

I hope you can wrap your mind around the distinction here.

Yes, I managed to understand it in about 2.3 seconds, which included the time I needed to diagnose your confusion.

My response was "Says you". Well, says you and Kant, but I think you're both wrong.

Says you.

If you prefer a loose moral system that allows killing to be moral in some cases, have at it. I prefer a static one where things are consistent. In my system killing is always wrong. I accept the fact that on a practical level killing may be the best solution, but on purely a moral level it is not any more right.

If you prefer a loose moral system that allows killing to be moral in some cases, have at it. I prefer a static one where things are consistent. In my system killing is always wrong.

There's nothing "loose" about my view. It is perfectly consistent, so as rigid as you get. The other wonderful benefit to my system -- contrary to yours -- is that it passes the only test that matters: the test of how the majority of us think of this case. I'm not saying we have no arguments for why we think what we do, because we do, but if you can't even have a theory that accords with our most basic moral judgments, then you, like the other guy with Utilitarianism, have failed.

And the reason is this. No ethical theory is more compelling than our basic ethical judgments. If God Himself came down and told us that killing babies for sport was morally good, nobody would believe Him. And it wouldn't make killing babies for sport morally good because God said so. There is no ethical theory on the planet that can sway our judgment on the morality of killing babies for sport. Such moral judgments are the basis by which we judge ethical theories, not the other way round. Your theory and Discomfort-Utilitarianism (whatever the heck that's supposed to be) fail miserably because they run contrary to some of our most basic moral judgments. If I kill people my entire life in self-defense, then your theory says I'm a morally bad person, because my life is one morally bad act after another. Your theory spits out conclusions that run counter to our basic moral judgments. Your theory fails. Discomfort-Utilitarianism must side with the least discomfort. So given any moral dilemma in which it's a simple arithmetical choice between causing 10 people severe discomfort or 1 person severe discomfort, the Discomfort-Utilitarian must choose the 1 person, even if the one person is being unjustly attacked by ten people. Again, utter failure.

I accept the fact that on a practical level killing may be the best solution, but on purely a moral level it is not any more right.

There is no distinction between a practical level and a moral level: Ethics is the mother of all practical philosophies.

Fiveredapples,

I don't know what majority you are talking about. You must have lengthy studies to cite about what the worlds population thinks. In any event the majority can be wrong.

No ethical theory is more compelling than our basic ethical judgments.

We each have our own basic ethical judgments.

If I kill people my entire life in self-defense, then your theory says I'm a morally bad person, because my life is one morally bad act after another.

In that extraordinarily unrealistic case, yes, you are immoral but not bad because of your justifications.


What is moral is not what is just. They are not the same thing, otherwise we wouldn't have two different words. There are rules(morality), and there are exceptions for the rules(justification). In my system I don't change the rules just because there are exceptions.

Really the only difference between our systems is that you call it moral, and I call it justified.

You have jumped to all sorts of conclusions about my views. They are not the same as "Discomfort-Utilitarianism" I have never heard of that before.

The motivation behind an action is what makes it moral or immoral, not the action in it self. How many people have good intentions/motivation and the consiquence of thier action actually hurts people instead? If you flip this it works the same way. A person as bad intentions/motivation and the consiquence of the action actually helps people.

What point is there in doing the right thing if it makes the world worse? If it leads to more suffering than there would otherwise be, or more suffering than the ideal course of action would bring about?

Whoever rejects utilitarianism is arguing for extra suffering in comparison to it. Why do you people want extra suffering to be in the world? You better bring good reasons. And intuitions aren't good reasons! I've said this elsewhere, if the environment our ancestors lived in had been different, we could theoretically have utilitarian intuitions, or a strong intuition that ethics is about maximizing bicycles in the universe.

http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/serio ... ering.html
What could possibly be more important in ethics than that suffering is bad?

In that extraordinarily unrealistic case, yes, you are immoral but not bad because of your justifications.

Is this supposed to make sense. I'm an immoral person but not a bad person? In what sense am I bad? If not a moral way, then who cares. You've already concede that I'd be immoral, so you concede my view.

Really the only difference between our systems is that you call it moral, and I call it justified.

No, the difference is that when I say you're justified, I don't call you immoral also.

-- Updated March 13th, 2012, 10:39 pm to add the following --

What point is there in doing the right thing if it makes the world worse? If it leads to more suffering than there would otherwise be, or more suffering than the ideal course of action would bring about?

Who says more suffering means the world is worse? Again, there are no intrinsic properties attached to pain or suffering. You're assuming there are and also assuming that Ethics is based on preventing suffering. And, again, you have no argument for this view.

I'll make it really simple for you. I don't concede any of these PREMISES:

1. Doing the right thing is so there is less suffering in the world.
2. Suffering is inherently bad.

Let's note how nowhere have you bothered to argue for your two major premises. Doing philosophy like that, I can "prove" anything.

Whoever rejects utilitarianism is arguing for extra suffering in comparison to it.

Wrong. Whoever rejects your Utilitarianism rejects either 1 or 2, or both 1 and 2, neither of which you've argued for.

Why do you people want extra suffering to be in the world?

Strawman argument.

You better bring good reasons.

None needed. It's a strawman argument.

And intuitions aren't good reasons!

Says you. At least some intuitions are putatively true. Your two premises are not. By the way, did I mention you haven't argued for them?

I've said this elsewhere, if the environment our ancestors lived in had been different, we could theoretically have utilitarian intuitions, or a strong intuition that ethics is about maximizing bicycles in the universe.

More bicycles is always good.

http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/serio ... ering.html
What could possibly be more important in ethics than that suffering is bad?

If we wanted to read a real philosopher, what possible role could you play in this? This is a philosophy forum. If you buy into this view, if it is compelling to you, then you should be able to articulate this. If you can't, it's because you don't know what you're talking about.

If I kill people my entire life in self-defense, then your theory says I'm a morally bad person, because my life is one morally bad act after another.

In that extraordinarily unrealistic case, yes, you are immoral but not bad because of your justifications.

Is this supposed to make sense. I'm an immoral person but not a bad person? In what sense am I bad? If not a moral way, then who cares. You've already concede that I'd be immoral, so you concede my view.

It makes about as much sense as a person who has killed in self defense their entire life. It just doesn't happen. My answer was to a theoretical scenario which simply does not happen, of course it won't make sense.


I still hold that killing is always wrong. One should feel remorse for a person(or anything) they kill, even in self defense. It's a matter of respect for another human being. If one doesn't want to feel guilty for ending a life then use your system. Maybe one won't understand unless they have killed.

It makes about as much sense as a person who has killed in self defense their entire life. It just doesn't happen. My answer was to a theoretical scenario which simply does not happen, of course it won't make sense.

Yes, but I don't need to extrapolate the example over a life time. The point was to highlight that you'd be forced to call my act of self-defense an immoral act, a morally bad act. Hence, I would be morally bad in doing this act. That's all we need. The 'entire life' part was to make the silliness of your view jump out more clearly.

I still hold that killing is always wrong.

That's great. But you need an argument for this view, especially since it itself is contentious and, worse yet, the conclusion it yields are highly contentious.

Feeling bad that someone had to die, even someone who attacked you, doesn't imply or necessitate that you did something morally wrong. Anyway, what's the point of this discussion. You're here telling us about your favorite theory but aren't arguing for it. What's the point?