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.I don't see an argument, using negative utilitarianism, — JacobPhilosophy
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
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
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
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
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
Btw I know I am embarrassingly ignorant, but I ask questions in order to gain a deeper understanding, so forgive me. — JacobPhilosophy
Btw I know I am embarrassingly ignorant, but I ask questions in order to gain a deeper understanding, so forgive me. — JacobPhilosophy
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
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
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
I largely base my ethical groundwork around the basis of negative utilitarianism, in minimising potential net suffering. — JacobPhilosophy
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.