I’m going to say the folks who’d slit your throat if it makes enough other people feel warm and fuzzy do not have the best framework to reduce human suffering
What you’re missing is that most ethical frameworks see human life as valuable enough that it should only be taken in the most dire of circumstances (usually to prevent at least one more death). So it’s fine to kill an active shooter, but it’s not fine to kill someone who’s stolen a bunch of cars, even if the value of those cars is more than the dollar figure a utilitarian would place on an individual’s life.
A utilitarian will (generally) also see a human life as being so valuable that it should only be taken in the most dire of circumstances. Unlike other people, they are actually willing to calculate exactly how direthat circumstance should be.
You can press a button once that will extend somebody’s life by a month but 90% of that month will be spent in pure agony. You cannot ask them what their preference is. Do you extend their life or not? I wouldn’t press that button. A hospital might.
A utilitarian will (generally) also see a human life as being so valuable that it should only be taken in the most dire of circumstances.
The first link you dropped in this exchange includes articles like “You Can Put A Dollar Value On Human Life.” I just don’t believe people who assign that sort of value to lives, and whose core philosophy is maximizing value, are strictly opposed to trading others’ lives if the math checks out. Strict utilitarianism is basically “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.”
I’m sure lots of utilitarians try to put a nicer gloss on this, but that’s the bones of the philosophy.
The link you mentioned is dead, but I agree with the notion. Governments already put a dollar value on human life. Dollars can save lives, therefore human lives are worth dollars. Katja Grace says it better than I can.
Pull the lever, divert the trolley, save four lives.
I’m going to say the folks who’d slit your throat if it makes enough other people feel warm and fuzzy do not have the best framework to reduce human suffering
You’re basically saying it would be unethical to have killed Hitler.
Obviously not.
What you’re missing is that most ethical frameworks see human life as valuable enough that it should only be taken in the most dire of circumstances (usually to prevent at least one more death). So it’s fine to kill an active shooter, but it’s not fine to kill someone who’s stolen a bunch of cars, even if the value of those cars is more than the dollar figure a utilitarian would place on an individual’s life.
A utilitarian will (generally) also see a human life as being so valuable that it should only be taken in the most dire of circumstances. Unlike other people, they are actually willing to calculate exactly how dire that circumstance should be.
You can press a button once that will extend somebody’s life by a month but 90% of that month will be spent in pure agony. You cannot ask them what their preference is. Do you extend their life or not? I wouldn’t press that button. A hospital might.
The first link you dropped in this exchange includes articles like “You Can Put A Dollar Value On Human Life.” I just don’t believe people who assign that sort of value to lives, and whose core philosophy is maximizing value, are strictly opposed to trading others’ lives if the math checks out. Strict utilitarianism is basically “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.”
I’m sure lots of utilitarians try to put a nicer gloss on this, but that’s the bones of the philosophy.
I love Le Guin.
The link you mentioned is dead, but I agree with the notion. Governments already put a dollar value on human life. Dollars can save lives, therefore human lives are worth dollars. Katja Grace says it better than I can.
Pull the lever, divert the trolley, save four lives.
You are why people hate utilitarianism
yep. cuz they hate to admit we right ;)