Killing, Utilitarianism etc

[BobKKKindle$]

Is killing someone morally acceptable, if by killing them you save the lives of many other people? Faced with this situation, would it be fair to say that you have a moral obligation to kill the "someone" such that it is immoral to allow them to live? What if the "someone" has not done anything wrong - a newborn child, for instance?

I've been thinking about utilitarian ethics and recently read a series of thought experiments which investigate the morality of killing another human being. I've generally been attracted to the utilitarian perspective as I've always found a system of ethics based on "rights" as relying on the existence of metaphysical ideas that have no basis in material reality. I'd be interested to hear your perspectives on the issue above - as well as the broader question of whether utilitarianism is the best or a suitable system of ethics, on which to base our personal decisions and, ultimately, government policy.

[Holden Caulfield]

Is killing someone morally acceptable, if by killing them you save the lives of many other people?

this is covered in Trotskys 'Terrorim and Communism' in the 'terrorism section',



The decree of the Commune concerning hostages and their execution in reply to the atrocities of the Versaillese arose, according to the profound explanation of Kautsky, “from a striving to preserve human life, not to destroy it.” A marvelous discovery! It only requires to be developed. It could, and must, be explained that in the civil war we destroyed White Guards in order that they should not destroy the workers. Consequently, our problem is not the destruction of human life, but its preservation. But as we have to struggle for the preservation of human life with arms in our hands, it leads to the destruction of human life – a puzzle the dialectical secret of which was explained by old Hegel, without reckoning other still more ancient sages.


that is the best quote i can find atm im short of time, there are many more examples and metaphors to push the point across

[Module]

Yes, I'd consider that acceptable.
Clearly, if killing one person means the saving of many others, then saving this one person simply means you've caused the deaths of many others.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Is killing someone morally acceptable, if by killing them you save the lives of many other people? Faced with this situation, would it be fair to say that you have a moral obligation to kill the "someone" such that it is immoral to allow them to live?

In the utilitarian perspective it is not only morally right, but an obligation. The moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure for the maximum number of persons. So if you were to act not to kill for the maximization of overall utility you would be acting immorally.


What if the "someone" has not done anything wrong - a newborn child, for instance?In the utilitarian conception, whether or not that child has done anything wrong, if they are barring the maximization of overall utility in achieving happiness, you are morally obliged to do away with it in the appropriate manner so as to maximize overall happiness.


I've generally been attracted to the utilitarian perspective as I've always found a system of ethics based on "rights" as relying on the existence of metaphysical ideas that have no basis in material reality.I would agree with this. The problem is utilitarianism offers no solution. Like all ethical theories it is based in a particular set of material conditions. This means that certainly it can not be eternally or universally true, but this is not to say that because of this it is useless, all moral codes and theories are outgrowths of material conditions, yet during a particular stage of society may serve of great importance.


I'd be interested to hear your perspectives on the issue above - as well as the broader question of whether utilitarianism is the best or a suitable system of ethics, on which to base our personal decisions and, ultimately, government policy.Utilitarianism utilizes an almost mathematical determination of utility, concerning itself only with overall "happiness" for a majority. How can utilitarianism suggest it is anymore "ethical" to ensure the maximum happiness for the maximum population? What is so special about the majority that allows it to over rule the individual?

For myself the only possible solution in regard to ethical and moral codes is moral nihilism. All forms of morality are simply outgrowths of the material conditions of society from which they are born. This is of course not to say that morals don't serve a purpose. Cultural moral and ethical codes allow societies to function effectively, without which "anarchy" reins which is undesirable from a perspective of human development and existence.

[rouchambeau]

I've generally been attracted to the utilitarian perspective as I've always found a system of ethics based on "rights" as relying on the existence of metaphysical ideas that have no basis in material reality.
The same could be said about utility. There's no real way to measure utility, so any attempts to quantify it end up assuming more than what we can derive from the real world.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Desrumeaux:


Clearly, if killing one person means the saving of many others, then saving this one person simply means you've caused the deaths of many others.

What happens if those you have saved go on to murder several others each.

In that case, killing that one person will end up killing many.

Consequentialist theories like this are always hostages to fortune, and, as Rouchambeau says, they rely on a level of omniscience that no human could ever aspire to.

[Holden Caulfield]

logic/common (do not attack logic please) would imply that intent of saving somebodys life without the knowledge that they are murders themselves would morally outweigh the fact they go on to murder more,

if you know they are murders then the choice of lesser of two evils applies, and the killer of the would be murderer could even be carrying out our 'killing to save a life'

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HeWhoEtc:


logic/common (do not attack logic please) would imply that intent of saving somebodys life without the knowledge that they are murders themselves would morally outweigh the fact they go on to murder more,

if you know they are murders then the choice of lesser of two evils applies, and the killer of the would be murderer could even be carrying out our 'killing to save a life'

Where am I attacking logic (I am in fact one of its stoutest defenders at RevLeft)?

But, utilitarianism cannot take what you say into account, for it seeks to maximise utility, and future contingencies are intergral to that calculus.

So, if NN kills MM to save 10 others, utilitarianism says that this is the best thing to do.

If, now those ten go on to kill another ten each (they could be soldiers off to Iraq), then that is now a hundred and one deaths as a result.

Utilitarianism tells us that is not the best thing to have happened.

If, now we find out that those hundred people were about to kill ten each, then that is one thousand lives saved, as a result.

Utiltariansm tells us that this is the best thing...

As history unfolds, the judgement changes, so utilitariansim cannot actually settle on a verdict.

[The fact that the above is contrived is irrelevant, in view of the additional fact that life is complex anyway (far more complex than the example given), and that utilitariansim was trumpetted as the answer to every moral problem, real or imagined. Anyway, I did say that those ten could be soldiers off to Iraq, so that part is highly likely.]

That is partly why utilitarians then split into two main camps: Act and Rule Utilitarians.

The latter just became surreptitious Kantians (or, perhaps, bargain basement moral intuitionists), undermining Utilitarianism from within.

The former became Pharisees, with increasingly complex and baroque clauses added to their scheme (to decide on the nature of every conceivable act possible) that no one could put into practice, let alone use as a guide to action.

[Holden Caulfield]

HeWhoEtc:


is this what it has came to...

anyhoo,

i think intentions versus consequences needs to be regarded here, if knowledge of the original victim is not known then no judgement can be made with this as a factor even with hindsight,

if it is then logic, would imply that the victim should be allowed to be killed,

it comes down to facts really, philosophy in this situation cannot give an answer a mon avis as there are to many things to be accounted for, and that might not be known to be accounted for,

as you said

increasingly complex and baroque clauses added to their scheme
anyother argument on the subject would surely succum to this..

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HeWhoEtc:


I think intentions versus consequences needs to be regarded here, if knowledge of the original victim is not known then no judgement can be made with this as a factor even with hindsight,

But that makes you a Kantian or a moral intuitionist, as I pointed out, for now you have abandoned the utility of the consequences for the moral aim/status of the intention.


any other argument on the subject would surely succumb to this..

Well. that remains to be seen; but if you are right, then that shows that all moral 'theories' are useless.

Which is my position, anyway.

[Luís Henrique]

I can't understand how this openly pro-capitalist school of thought that is "utilitarianism" fascinates so many leftists.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It appears to offer simple, quick solutions.

It also seems to 'justify' revolutions, and the deaths they cause.

Hence you often hear the 'you can't make omlettes without breaking eggs' analogy.

[professorchaos]

I tend to think that violence is never justifiable because nothing gives anyone the right to impose it upon another.

[Demogorgon]

Desrumeaux:



What happens if those you have saved go on to murder several others each.

In that case, killing that one person will end up killing many.

Consequentialist theories like this are always hostages to fortune, and, as Rouchambeau says, they rely on a level of omniscience that no human could ever aspire to.True, but a problem with alternatives to consequentialism is that unless they appeal to vague values like virtue they are either going to appeal to some kind of divine command theory or else fall back on some form of consequentialism, even if it is more abstract in nature.

Even Kantian ethics does this. Kant says to always act according to how you would will a universal law to be (I don't want to start you off here, but I have always felt uncomfortable about Kant because I feel there is a bit of proto-dialectics sneaking into some of this thinking). At any rate though what we would will the universal law to be is going to come down to how we would wish to be treated, and that is going to take into account consequences.

I am not defending Utilitarianism, because it falls down due to the basic problem that you cannot measure utility, but I can not follow that through to an attack on consequentialism in general, because the fact is we do judge actions to be good or bad based on what the outcome of these actions was. If all other things being equal, someone shoots someone else, we say that is bad because we don't like the consequences of murder. But if someone shoots someone who is attempting to gun down a classroom of children we say it was right to do that, because we judge the killing worth it to save the children.

Even when we judge an action that turned out to have bad consequences to have been acceptable, we generally do it because the person who did it believed in good faith that the action would have different consequences.

[Holden Caulfield]

Which is my position, anyway.

same here kinda but i came to my own ideas about philosophy through constantly questioning psychological schools of thought,

still i am hightly interested in philosophical theories as opinions and ideals rather than fully applicable 'laws' of behaviour