Namely how do you devise such an awesome calculus to define what is moral? There are so many things to factor in that decising such a calculus is hopelessly complex and impractical. — Posty McPostface
but utilitarianism is more practical or flexible than kantian imperatives. So, under such an assumption it seems like utilitarianism is superior to categorical imperative moral decision making. — Posty McPostface
If you treat the utilitarian calculus as a rulebook to abide by, then the differences between deontologists and consequentialists kind of gets blurry. A little. — Posty McPostface
Do utilitarian theorists nowadays agree that pleasure maximization is the best or only criterion of utility?Utilitarianism is the theory that an action is moral only if it maximizes pleasure. — GreyScorpio
Is there another reasonable solution to the problem as it is defined? Flip a coin, perhaps, or just leave the train running down whichever line it happens to be on.... I won't say choosing the left track is worse than leaving the outcome to chance. For my scruples it seems like the best course of action, however we might seek to justify it with moral models.For example, a classic example, if you were a train driver and your train spontaneously failed causing your breaks to stop working and people were on the two junction tracks. One person on the left and five people on the write. Which track do you take? Utilitarians will obviously say to take the left track with the one person on it sacrificing his life to save the five on the right track. This is because more people would be happy with the outcome as the quantity of people is greater in five than one. — GreyScorpio
I wouldn't call it "condoning killing" to choose the left track or to condone that choice, in the example as you've defined it.However, is it correct to be able to condone killing this way? Not to mention other moral dilemmas of which utilitarianism would perhaps favor the side that is not socially moral. — GreyScorpio
That's where things start getting sticky.Not to mention other moral dilemmas of which utilitarianism would perhaps favor the side that is not socially moral. — GreyScorpio
Is there another reasonable solution to the problem as it is defined? Flip a coin, perhaps, or just leave the train running down whichever line it happens to be on.... I won't say choosing the left track is worse than leaving the outcome to chance. For my scruples it seems like the best course of action, however we might seek to justify it with moral models. — Cabbage Farmer
I wouldn't call it "condoning killing" to choose the left track or to condone that choice, in the example as you've defined it. — Cabbage Farmer
It's a reasonable attempt to do the least harm in a terrible situation. — Cabbage Farmer
I expect the evaluation of utility is an open question. — Cabbage Farmer
So Kant clearly destroys the calculus because he has put in place set rules that do not condone acts such as lying. — GreyScorpio
Maybe utilitarianism isn't an appropriate moral framework for individuals. — Bitter Crank
In terms of maxims, don't you think that there are so many rules for a maxim to be appropriate that the inflexibility forces morality to be set rules? — GreyScorpio
I think you got twisted up in this sentence. Try again.Also, a maxim must not be one that uses a person as a means to your ends and vice versa, these are moral rules, I believe, which limit the flexibility that Kantian ethics has in terms of situations that are more personal. — GreyScorpio
What is a moral problem that is not situation dependent?What of those moral dilemmas that depend on a situation to be relevant? — GreyScorpio
I think you got twisted up in this sentence. Try again. — tim wood
What is a moral problem that is not situation dependent? — tim wood
Perhaps you have an example in mind?Moral dilemmas are situational and I don't think Kantian ethics can deal with them effectively. — GreyScorpio
This situation is not very good exemplification of controversies related to utilitarianism, because in this scenario, there is no way for the train driver to abstain from any killing, he has to choose the side. So it's not about killing one person or not, it's about killing one person or five people. Most people would agree instinctively that killing one person is lesser evil than killing five people in the situation when you literally cannot choose not to kill anyone, regardless of whether they are utilitarian or not. Perhaps the scenario in which the person can actively kill one person to save other five or abstain from action and let five people die would underline the issue better.For example, a classic example, if you were a train driver and your train spontaneously failed causing your breaks to stop working and people were on the two junction tracks. One person on the left and five people on the write. Which track do you take? Utilitarians will obviously say to take the left track with the one person on it sacrificing his life to save the five on the right track. This is because more people would be happy with the outcome as the quantity of people is greater in five than one. — GreyScorpio
I think that question about correctness is always dependent on the set of criteria we choose. That is, we cannot know if any objective ethics exist independently of people developing ethics. We may only have some conceptions on what is "right" or "wrong", and judge the quality of those conceptions by their level of internal coherency. Hence, the question whether something is correct of not can be answered only within the frame of certain ethical conceptions. According to utilitarianism, yes, it would be correct. According to moral absolutist who lives under the "do not kill" rule it wouldn't be correct. Both attitudes can be internally coherent, and we can judge just that, what we cannot do is to tell which of those attitudes is closer to "objective moral truth".However, is it correct to be able to condone killing this way? — GreyScorpio
Define "socially moral".Not to mention other moral dilemmas of which utilitarianism would perhaps favor the side that is not socially moral. — GreyScorpio
They inform and advise as to criteria for maxims that you invent to establish your own rules for yourself. The maxims themselves then provide a ground of defense or justification for the particular action you do undertake. And there's nothing moral or ethical about it. — tim wood
The maxim competing with the don't lie rule might be, don't put another person in danger, even if you have to lie to protect them. And if this held in all cases, that the lie did in fact protect, then there would be imo a very strong argument for it's supplanting the maxim against lying. But it doesn't hold in all cases - it can't, and therefore it lacks the strength it needs. Apparently Kant did agree that while you weren't allowed to lie, you could refuse to answer. — tim wood
No! The imperative "must" is the wrong word and the wrong idea. Why "must"? To argue that a maxim be universalizable is by no means the argument that it must be universalized, or should be, or even can be.Okay, but don't you think that Kant had in mind, when claiming that Maxims must be universalizeable, that we must all abide by this maxim or 'rule' in order for us to be moral or for our actions to hold moral value. — GreyScorpio
What, exactly, do you want? An ethics of convenience that will allow you to do what you want? If you have a better model, present it. But it's hard to beat reason - unless you abandon it for something else. Is that what you're about? If it is, what replaces reason?I agree, the flexibility of Kant's ethics is lacking incredibly. Especially against theories devised by Aristotle and other theories such as moral realist theories. — GreyScorpio
What, exactly, do you want? An ethics of convenience that will allow you to do what you want? If you have a better model, present it. But it's hard to beat reason - unless you abandon it for something else. Is that what you're about? If it is, what replaces reason? — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.