Utilitarianism and Murder

JacobPhilosophy

I largely base my ethical groundwork around the basis of negative utilitarianism, in minimising potential net suffering. Naturally, death and murder is difficult to condemn using this framework. Most commonly, I say that to live in a society in which murder is permissible would cause suffering to members within it, as a result of feeling unsafe. However, I have found a few issues with the implications: using negative utilitarianism, couldn't one justify murdering their own child? Assuming both parents agree and no one exterior to them would mourn the death of the new-born, and assuming that the death is painless, surely this wouldn't cause any suffering, no? This train of thought derived from my standpoint in regards to abortion: claiming that life is sacred is arbitrary and is fallacious as we destroy cells and plants, but to say that moral worth begins once there is a preference to continue living is just as arbitrary, as no suffering would necessarily arise from exclusively murdering new-borns. As baby's cannot fear their own death, and those who are old enough to will not have to fear it, I don't see an argument, using negative utilitarianism, against parents murdering their baby's. Enlighten me.

tim wood

I don't see an argument, using negative utilitarianism, — JacobPhilosophy

On the assumption that the suffering, harm, and pain were less than any alternative, then, using NU, neither do I. But the assumption is faulty. Therefore NU and its conclusion do not hold. QED.

No doubt I could build a theory that says, certain assumptions granted, I can fly. The very best that theory could do is possess inner consistency and not be self-contradictory, but in no case would it enable me to fly.

DingoJones

↪JacobPhilosophy

I think you misunderstand NU. Its true that it is primarily concerned with minimising suffering, but that doesnt mean it has no other precepts. NU is also concerned with maximising happiness just like normal utilitarianism, its just a lesser priority than minimising suffering. So while murdering newborns might be ok under the primary precept of NU, it violates other precepts of NU. (Many of which come from utilitarianism, but NU directly references maximising happiness as well as minimising suffering none the less)
So you arent using the proper metrics of NU when you conclude its ok to murder newborns. Once you do, murdering newborns is no longer ok under NU.

Outlander

Why not just take murder out of the equation and don't have kids? Lol. Solves everything. Besides. Those responsible will probably suffer from the memory of having to do so. But you know, perhaps not.

philosopher004

ouldn't one justify murdering their own child? Assuming both parents agree and no one exterior to them would mourn the death of the new-born, and assuming that the death is painless, surely this wouldn't cause any suffering, no? — JacobPhilosophy

You did not place the parents in a context here.Let me do it for you

1st Case:
The child has some rare genetic disorder in which he/she will have amplified pain sensitivity.So then killing the baby is justified because the parents want to reduce suffering for their child.

2nd Case:
They wanted a boy but it was a girl .So now they decided to kill the child.Now it is wrong because the main aim of NU is to reduce suffering(death etc).Now what if the child lives to an age of 100 years and dies happily Or live only up to an age of 12 years and still lives happily.

In the second case the parents are preventing happiness for their child for their own satisfaction. Isn't selfishness wrong in NU?

JacobPhilosophy

↪philosopher004

My point was there there wouldn't need to be a reason. They could do it just for the fun of it, and it would cause no suffering, if the murder was painless.

JacobPhilosophy

↪Outlander

I'm not encouraging it . I'm debating ethics, given that an unwanted child is born

JacobPhilosophy

↪DingoJones

maximising pleasure is a consequence of minimising suffering. How can it be immoral to not bring pleasure to an individual? This seems irrational. When ethics are concerned, we do not feel that it is unethical to decide not to cause pleasure, but we find it unethical to cause suffering. Therefore I feel it seems irrational to say that "potential pleasure" being restricted is a reason why it is immoral, as the same argument can be used for not conceiving in the first place, and nobody says it's immoral to use a condom.

In addition, it could be argued that the pleasure of the parents is increased, as they no longer have the child that they didn't want, and the child experienced neither pleasure nor pain, so therefore it is ethical.

philosopher004

My point was there there wouldn't need to be a reason. They could do it just for the fun of it, and it would cause no suffering, if the murder was painless. — JacobPhilosophy

Here there wouldn't be reason because you didn't pick a decision making entity.In NU actions which minimize suffering are considered good.In the first case I proposed its okay to "murder" the infant because it minimizes suffering.
But just doing for the fun of it isn't going to get us anywhere.
But if you say that the parents are killing the baby because they don't want the infant to live in this cruel world created by a cruel god.Then they should have known that Anti natalism is an option.

JacobPhilosophy

↪philosopher004

my point wasn't that it was morally virtuous to murder the infant, but amoral. It is neither virtuous nor deplorable, if you are taking the standpoint of NU. It's not that they SHOULD, it's that they have no moral reason not to.

philosopher004

Can you clarify the method they employ to kill the infant?

DingoJones

maximising pleasure is a consequence of minimising suffering. How can it be immoral to not bring pleasure to an individual? This seems irrational. When ethics are concerned, we do not feel that it is unethical to decide not to cause pleasure, but we find it unethical to cause suffering. Therefore I feel it seems irrational to say that "potential pleasure" being restricted is a reason why it is immoral, as the same argument can be used for not conceiving in the first place, and nobody says it's immoral to use a condom. — JacobPhilosophy

Then you are rejecting NU, and your initial query about NU is moot.
Also, NU (and just Utilitarianism) isnt about maximising pleasure, its about maximising net happiness (As a primary precept of Utilitarianism and a secondary precept of NU).

In addition, it could be argued that the pleasure of the parents is increased, as they no longer have the child that they didn't want, and the child experienced neither pleasure nor pain, so therefore it is ethical. — JacobPhilosophy

The child not experiencing pleasure or pain isnt enough for NU, NU demands that after considering the minimising of the childs suffering you must then consider maximising net happiness of the child. If you do not, as you have not dine here, then you violated NU.

If you do not want to make that consideration and speak of general ethics then you can also just go ahead and not make the minimising suffering consideration as well since as you’ve noticed it doesnt make much sense when you operate in that precept alone.

TheMadFool

I say that to live in a society in which murder is permissible would cause suffering to members within it, as a result of feeling unsafe. — JacobPhilosophy

As baby's cannot fear their own death, and those who are old enough to will not have to fear it, I don't see an argument, using negative utilitarianism, against parents murdering their baby's. Enlighten me. — JacobPhilosophy

:chin:

JacobPhilosophy

↪DingoJones

so murder is only permissible using NU when the baby is suffering, so as to minimise it in death? If this is the case, how do we decide when an agent becomes morally valuable? Is it when they gain consciousness/ sentience?

Btw I know I am embarrassingly ignorant, but I ask questions in order to gain a deeper understanding, so forgive me.

DingoJones

↪JacobPhilosophy

Well you would make a utilitarian calculation on the babies net suffering and net happiness. Under NU you would first consider minimising suffering and then look at the net happiness.
Im not aware of a strictly Utilitarian/NU precept about when someone is considered a moral agent.

Btw I know I am embarrassingly ignorant, but I ask questions in order to gain a deeper understanding, so forgive me. — JacobPhilosophy

Nothing to forgive, asking questions is the essence of philosophy in my opinion.

philosopher004

Btw I know I am embarrassingly ignorant, but I ask questions in order to gain a deeper understanding, so forgive me. — JacobPhilosophy

No need to apologize its just a healthy argument.

JacobPhilosophy

↪DingoJones

if you think about it, moral value must begin when the ability to suffer begins, in regards to NU, right? So in regards to abortion, it is wrong to kill as soon as the foetus is sentient.

However, If one were to reject NU, and merely believe that it is wrong to cause suffering, this would surely justify murdering new-borns, wouldn't it? I'm reinforcing this concept as it do not like it as an outcome and I struggle to figure out how to avoid it. I often see a suffering-less death as equal to never having been born in many regards.

philosopher004

so murder is only permissible using NU when the baby is suffering, so as to minimize it in death? If this is the case, how do we decide when an agent becomes morally valuable? Is it when they gain consciousness/ sentience? — JacobPhilosophy

Suppose we have a super infant who can speak and think properly from the moment of his/her birth.

I think its moral under NU to kill the baby if the infant says that he/she does not want to live in this world.

I think its immoral to kill the baby under NU if the infant refuses to die and wants to live in this world.

I think it is amoral to kill the baby under NU if the infant neither derives pain or pleasure from dying or living.

But here we do not have a super infant.How can anything be decided about its wants?

If morality is a stage ,then:A stage which is nice and strong is moral
A stage which is dirty and weak is immoral(supposing moral is greater than immoral) A stage which is non existent but still can be build into strong(moral)
or weak(immoral) stages is amoral.(supposing that amoral actions can be viewed as immoral or moral)

But in the infant case there is no idea of stage.

I am no philosophy student but please correct me if I am wrong.

JacobPhilosophy

↪philosopher004

I think I agree. This is why I believe, under my view, that it is amoral, and simply not a moral issue.

DingoJones

if you think about it, moral value must begin when the ability to suffer begins, in regards to NU, right? So in regards to abortion, it is wrong to kill as soon as the foetus is sentient. — JacobPhilosophy

I think you are correct, under NU suffering is the qualifier for moral agency.

However, If one were to reject NU, and merely believe that it is wrong to cause suffering, this would surely justify murdering new-borns, wouldn't it? I'm reinforcing this concept as it do not like it as an outcome and I struggle to figure out how to avoid it. I often see a suffering-less death as equal to never having been born in many regards. — JacobPhilosophy

Well a newborn can suffer, so again that is only part of the calculation made under NU. You must also consider the net happiness.
It seems like you reject NU but do not want to reject it. Is there some reason you think NU is what you should be subscribing to?

JacobPhilosophy

↪DingoJones

no I just find it easier to refer to it as NU. I wouldn't follow it for the sake of it. I subscribe to a version of it, so to speak. To me, ethics are merely the result of one's desire to maximise their own pleasure. By not harming another being, they are comforted by the idea that they will not be harmed. This is where legality is involved. My views are an off-branch of egoism and negative utilitarianism. Under what I have just described, I don't believe that painlessly killing new-borns could be deemed unjust, as it does not cause any suffering to anyone involved.

DingoJones

↪JacobPhilosophy

Ok, I understand. :up:

JacobPhilosophy

↪DingoJones

it could be argued that living in a society in which it is ok to kill babies would lead to desensitisation and distress, as it goes against our biologically maternal (or paternal) instincts. In my opinion, a moral instinct is just as biological in this manner, as we evolved to value one another in order to ensure survival: tactical compassion.

JacobPhilosophy

I think the safe escape is using, as I have previously mentioned, the argument that moral worth beings as sentience and the ability to suffer begins. This avoids most slippery slopes.

It is difficult to state why murder is unethical, using pleasure-based systems, so I usually accept that so long as a being has a preference to continue living, they have the right for that not to be taken away for an unjust reason. (This applies to animals, as I am vegan).

DingoJones

↪JacobPhilosophy

That coincides with your brand of egoism. Im more of a social contract guy myself, and I dont much buy into principal based ethics. I think you are right about tactical compassion as the basis or origin of morals, but there is also a strong biological basis in empathy as well. Its not tactical to have compassion for an injured child or animal for example. (Well, not necessarily anyway).

JacobPhilosophy

↪DingoJones

I believe that at a point in evolution, we began to agree to a contact of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". For example, helping an injured animal may lead to companionship or aiding in general survival. Helping a wounded child ensures that one's own child is helped, and the continuation of a bloodline (reproduction) is another crucial intrinsic biological desire, resulting from evolution. I believe that, as those who were naturally more compassionate survived longer (contractarianism leads to survival), we were naturally selected to have enate empathy, after many years. This is all grounded in egoism.

Linking this to the forum subject matter, it could be argued that the reason we do not murder new borns is because we were naturally selected to do so.

DingoJones

↪JacobPhilosophy

That surely has something to do with it, we are social creatures and thats where it all comes from. Once we soar on the wings of reason, thats where things get interesting ethically.

_db

I largely base my ethical groundwork around the basis of negative utilitarianism, in minimising potential net suffering. — JacobPhilosophy

Do you really? Do you actually live your life according to these principles?

JacobPhilosophy

↪darthbarracuda

it's more of a rationalisation than a basis from which to act, although there is some overlap.

khaled

↪JacobPhilosophy

With NU I can’t justify NOT nuking the entire world of you get the chance much less not killing children. Certainly severe suffering now is better than the (comparatively) mild suffering of the world today stretched over thousands of years no? 1000*1 < 10*1000.

I think NU needs to take consent into consideration to make sense. As in the goal should not be: minimize suffering, it should be: do no harm (defined as any act done without consent). When phrased that way parents can’t kill their children because that would be inflicting harm (since the child can’t give consent) and one can’t justify harm done today to reduce suffering tomorrow.

I know this isn’t NU anymore but it’s what I use personally due to having problems with NU

_db

↪JacobPhilosophy

A rationalization of what?

Utilitarianism and Murder

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions