New answers tagged

0

I believe what you are describing is the Is-Ought Problem. 'Is' statements are about the state the world. 'Ought' statements are about what we should do in response to the state of the world. The Is-Ought Problem is about how do you get from the former to the latter. The most famous answer was provided by Hume; you can't. He said that a logical deduction can ...


0

With utilitarianism you have to iterate several times, wether happiness has to be distributed equally doesnt matter initially, it's the global amount that matter. However what matters is the impact the happiness you give will have in promoting more happiness (and so on and so forth). Giving more happiness to someone who's fine won't change much, but it may ...


0

You'd have to calculate the utility of -the governement being threatened (does the governemnt promote happiness better than the alternative) -the utility of the lives of the insurgents -the utility of the lives of the collateral kill -the utility of the impact on the public image of pushing the button (diplomatic relations, war crime, fear, more revolts etc.....


0

You are better dividing utilitarians into 5 groups; actual, likely, foreseeable, foreseen, and intended consequences. Actual - What happens is important Likely - What is most likely to happen is important. Foreseeable - What a person could of predicted if they thought about the matter is important. Foreseen - What a person did predict is important. Intended -...


-1

Money like many things, doesnt have a linear value. Meaning, you might not want to risk whatever % of your money if you barely have enough to feed yourself. But you may do so if you have disposable income. You can't reduce rationality to such numerals. And despite your edit, no utility benefits linearly with its metric: You could replace money with life ...


1

I know the principle seems consequentialist at first sight, but my point is that by defining what's right not in terms of how good the actual consequences of an action are, but in terms of our reasons to believe those consequences would be good, I am not appealing directly to consequences. the reasons to believe those consequences would be good must be ...


-1

Morality exist because of the need to maximize happiness, and happiness exists because that's how we are programmed by biology to ensure our survival. But if we don't survive (EDIT as a species) we dont have to worry about morality anymore


0

according to utilitarianism, it is your duty to try to predict the future the best you can. If a doctor got lucky despite the odds, that doesnt make it utilitarian. With utilitarianism , you really have to think global, the doctor will tend to retry giving the medecine with likely worse outcomes..... The interns will see the doctor making irrational choices ...


0

you have to think globally with utilitarianism. if writing poetry is necessary for your well being, then it's utilitarian to write poetry.....Because if you didnt, you'd be too miserable anyways to help others. That's why it's ok to take care of yourself with utilitarianism, because your happiness counts and because you can't help others if you are miserable....


2

Other responses claim that moral rightness depends on foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences, rather than actual ones. -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Entry on Consequentialism, Section 4: Which Consequences? Actual vs. Expected Consequentialisms Your philosophy has traditionally been categorized as Consequentialist. If you want, you ...


1

Your principle could be both consequentialist and dentological. In what it requires of you, in the obligation it imposes, it is plainly consequentalist but that says nothing about the considerations that make it obligatory. It could be a requirement of God (as in an ethics of divine commands) or a requirement of justice, neither of these requirements having ...


0

Just to offer a contrary opinion, I believe your maxim could be seen as deontological. It is stated as an imperative, it does not assume foreknowledge of consequences and outcomes, only "reasons to believe." It is not hypothetical, it transcends the interests of any given individual. Above all, it conforms somewhat to the Kantian idea of an ...


0

First response to a question here, I hope it is of some value and is coherent enough for this space. The rules Kant focused on is one factor. The method of testing a rule is where Kants best deonotological insight was. Namely the categorical imperative. I often find the best way to learn something is to just show it. "First, formulate a maxim that ...


Top 50 recent answers are included