Utilitiarianism and the Trolley Problem "joke"

[Aetixintro]

Let's say that we have this train-conductor that has a choice of running over and killing this one person instead of the group of 5 people on a different track.

If we repeat this "procedure" infinitely, then these 5 people can put themselves in harm's way and "present" one person on the other track and in this way kill "infinitely" many people which reduces the group of 5 "cynical" people to a very small group.

Conclusion: Utilitarianism is not plausible as viable way for ethics!

Your opinion?

Link, Reductio ad absurdum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 10 by wiploc]

If you're a sociopath, you may not care whether anyone else is happy. But, if you're not, then the issue concerns you. Most moral choices involve either sacrificing some of your own happiness for a greater increase to the happiness of others (paying your taxes, for instance), or sacrificing current happiness for a greater increase to your own later happiness (brushing your teeth).

You answered those questions disturbingly quickly.

Also, this last paragraph is an ad hominem. If you don't agree you are a sociopath.

You can make up a moral system that doesn't involve happiness, but you'll be the only one who cares about it.

This made me think. You are correct. Morality isn't about happiness which is why most people don't care about it.

Can't you see you just want to impose socialism? The majority wants blah so override the few for the many but hey I need to be in charge to make sure it happens.

[wiploc]

Also, this last paragraph is an ad hominem. If you don't agree you are a sociopath.

[2ndRateMind]

Is that a satisfactory definition? I agree that an outcome is ultimately at the heart of most moral systems. But utilitarianism is definitely not. It is focused on the greatest happiness for the majority. Certain moral systems are not concerned about majority.

Strictly speaking, you are quite right. Utilitarianism is just one branch of consequentialism, but it is, I think, the grand-daddy of them all. It is consequentialists who think that the outcome wholly determines the morality of a rule or action; utilitarians confine their calculus to the total utility of outcome, that being the balance of 'happiness' or 'pleasure' or 'well-being' over pain and misery, and contend that is what determines morality.

I apologise for leaving you all to discuss without my hosting the thread, for so long. Family duties called me away. But I did not forget you all!

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

So, what outcome, other than human happiness, is looked for by these other systems?

Indeed. But I think this term 'happiness' is liable to mean different things to different people. For some, it is their excuse to indulge in vice without restraint. For others, it is the trivial pursuit of diverting amusement, such as is 'fun'. For others yet, it is a deep contentment with oneself, and one's situation, such as is existential fulfillment. Seems to me that it is this latter that all ethical systems worthy of that description are aimed at, insofar as they admit outcome into their various perspectives at all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Morality isn't about happiness which is why most people don't care about it.

So, what is morality about? And what would make people care about it?

Best wishes, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

Also, this last paragraph is an ad hominem. If you don't agree you are a sociopath.

Ha ha! But I think there are grades of sociopath. One can observe the unhappiness of others, and simply conclude that 'it is not my problem'. Consider that a low grade tendency to sociopathy, consistent with 'rugged individualism', and wonder how far it contributes to a kind and just society, and how far it is justified by any ethical perspective.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Wootah]

Morality isn't about happiness which is why most people don't care about it.

So, what is morality about? And what would make people care about it?

Best wishes, 2RM

Morality is how God wants us to behave. People should care because ... God.

Morality leads us to make non-optimal evolutionary decisions on a daily basis. So the decision to be moral is either folly or because you follow God.

[2ndRateMind]

Morality isn't about happiness which is why most people don't care about it.

So, what is morality about? And what would make people care about it?

Best wishes, 2RM

Morality is how God wants us to behave. People should care because ... God.

Morality leads us to make non-optimal evolutionary decisions on a daily basis. So the decision to be moral is either folly or because you follow God.

I agree. If God is supremely good, as is often asserted, He must also be supremely moral. And what is moral in the world is His shadow on the world.

But the challenge for believers is to persuade non-believers that ethics without God still has some sort of traction on reality. If God did not exist, why should anyone be moral? Why should anyone make unselfish, 'non-optimal evolutionary decisions' if God does not occur as a consideration? Can the moral be justified independently of God? I would feel considerably more comfortable, if it could.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Wootah]

But the challenge for believers is to persuade non-believers that ethics without God still has some sort of traction on reality. If God did not exist, why should anyone be moral? Why should anyone make unselfish, 'non-optimal evolutionary decisions' if God does not occur as a consideration? Can the moral be justified independently of God? I would feel considerably more comfortable, if it could.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, I await the atheist to do so then I would become an atheist.

As a past atheist, it was these rational considerations that led me to God first.

[2ndRateMind]

But the challenge for believers is to persuade non-believers that ethics without God still has some sort of traction on reality. If God did not exist, why should anyone be moral? Why should anyone make unselfish, 'non-optimal evolutionary decisions' if God does not occur as a consideration? Can the moral be justified independently of God? I would feel considerably more comfortable, if it could.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, I await the atheist to do so then I would become an atheist.

As a past atheist, it was these rational considerations that led me to God first.

Me too. But I was not looking for just any old morality, but the most perfect of all objective moralities. And nobody could have been more surprised, and discombobulated, than I was, by finding it the way I found it, in the character of a loving God.

Nevertheless, it must be said that many atheists are not just socially acceptable with their moralities, but positively committed to, and convinced by, moralities that sometimes seem to put believers to shame. So, how do we account for this?

Best wishes, 2RM.