I agree with M here that this hippie/rapist case is no problem for Utilitarianism. All the cases you have thus far produced have very emotive contexts, such that the utilitarian decision seems counter-intuitive. I remind you counter-intuitive does not equal false, or even unjustified. What you instead are showing is the danger of rhetoric and emotion when it comes to considerations of morality. Throw in as many rapists, cannibals and baby-abusers as you like, it does not change the strength of your case one bit. Russell said "the occasions when we feel most moral are the occasions when we are administering punishment" yet he was wise to see that that feeling of moral fervour when we judge the rapist, the murderer, etc is no justification. Reason is required, not emotion.
The arguments for utilitarianism in deciding this case has been well stated in M's latest post. If we consider the past to make a decision when you have expressly set up the case such that the past is irrelevant to the outcome, we are in error. For what cannot be a cause cannot be considered as relevant. The only thing we can control in this case is whether to inflict more or less pain. When understood in these terms, utilitarianism is not counter-intuitive at all, and even if it were, why should one trust intuition and the majority view over a reasoned argument?
The critique you have made is that the utilitarians choice it is not in accordance with what you would do, and you further say that others would agree. Both of these points suggest only in the weakest sense that the decision to kill the rapist is better, because it is the intuitive and popular decision. It does not follow that what is intuitive and popular is true. Thus I see no argument in your posts why the utilitarian is mistaken in their decision. Argue with arguments or not at all.
J
No comments:
Post a Comment