Utilitarianism. Your thoughts?

[Skeletor]

Jim is in a small South American town as a tourist. Along a wall are twenty Indians who are about to be shot. The captain, noticing Jim is a visitor, offers Jim the chance to shoot one Indian and the rest will be freed. However, if he does not shoot the one, then all twenty will be killed. Given that he cannot stop them and the Indians cannot escape what should Jim do?

From "A Critique of Utilitarianism" by Bernard Williams.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Shoot the captain, since it sounds like he's the only other one there.

[Butts]

Kill the captain. Or commit suicide.

Or just kill everyone. Maybe a tea party would be in proper order?

[Bucket]

Since this is the Land of Make Believe, Jim should just rescue the Indians by calling the Unicorn Brigade. Then as he flies away, he can shoot the captain with his lollipop gun and he will sit down and eat ice cream the end.

[TheeXile]

The question doesn't define whether the Indians do not "deserve" to be shot. We can only presume since it's being given as an option that this is an act of sadism on the part of the captain and not so much an act of justice.

Edit: -snip-

[Technician]

If he shoots the captain then he will be executed himself. It's not like he can liberate the country with one man gone.

[TheeXile]

Actually, I hadn't considered this, but even in a country like this there's likely to be clear and definite laws against killing (with the obvious exception for military personnel, of course). It stands to reason that if I shot someone then I myself could be accused of murder (rightly, in fact), in spite of the nature of the circumstances (and in spite of whether the Captain "neglected" to specify this; we can presume if he's capable of one act of sadism he should probably be capable of more). In such a country, this would probably be a death sentence for me.

In that case I'd have to just walk away. Maybe I could do something later to save the lives of 100 Indians with my continued survival rather than blow it all with a false gesture of justice in a situation I have no control over.

[DaniJ]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13767332@N04/2738821696/

[geekmarine]

"Playing by the rules," as it were, obviously I'd shoot one indian to save the other 19. Choosing to shoot none is no different than choosing to shoot all of them.

[t.v.]

I would shoot the Indian from the Village People. He deserves to get shot. The fact that it would save 19 others is a nice bonus :-P.

[Jodwin]

There's just one question for the "dilemma": Are they convicted criminals or genocide victims (or some such)?

If it's the latter, whatever you choose it's unlikely to make any difference in the long run. Even if you chose to save the 19 today, they'd probably get killed the next day or so. The only benefit for yourself would be that you could feel happy they were able to get drunk (or high, whatever the local natives do) for one more night.

But if it's the former, I don't think there's any dilemma in there at all. Whoever thinks that there is is stupid.

[geekmarine]

The specifics aren't supposed to matter. This was a terrible hypothetical scenario because everyone seems to be getting hung up on the details and ignoring the overall question - do you sacrifice one life to save more?

So, for example, the scenario could be that you're in a car, driving down a hill when you lose control of the brakes. Your only two options are to just keep going straight and hit a group of people crossing the street, or try to veer off the road and hit one person. What do you do?

Or, perhaps an even more pure version of the first scenario, you're locked in a small booth. Through a window you can see 20 people. There's a button in front of you, and if you push the button, one person will die and the door will unlock. However, if the button is not pressed in five minutes, all 20 will die.

Ultimately, the whole point of it all is this. Do you take action that takes a life, or through inaction, do you allow more to die? A utilitarian would argue, as I have, that action and inaction are the same, and it's the final outcome that matters. Someone else might argue that it is fundamentally wrong to take a life regardless of the consequences. So even though inaction leads to 20 deaths, their blood is not on your hands, whereas if you shoot one, then you are guilty of murder.

[Creaphis]

I'd shoot 19.

[Sharessa]

I'd shoot the captain for being a dickhole.

Also, what are people from India doing in South America?

[exp(x)]

Fuck utilitarianism.

[TheeXile]

geekmarine said:

A utilitarian would argue, as I have, that action and inaction are the same, and it's the final outcome that matters.

There's that might makes right debate again. That's basically what 'ends justify the means' is, you know.

[CODOR]

I'd stop vacationing in places where people are routinely lined up against walls and shot...

[fraggle]

Yeah, any system of morality that just attempts to simplify all decisions down to a single rule ("greatest good for the greatest number") is inevitably naïve and flawed.

[Bucket]

Indeed. Utilitarian logic concludes that mankind is ultimately a plague on all intelligent life in the galaxy and we should exterminate ourselves. You start.

[Creaphis]

All rules of morality are naive and flawed. I respect utilitarianism for having a foundation in something other than divine edict, and it tends to colour my moral decisions, but ultimately I work through moral dilemmas on a case-by-case basis.

By which I mean I do what I want and then rationalize it.

You know, I actually expected to see more of a pro-utilitarianism attitude on these boards, and was considering making a genuine argument that utilitarianism considers shooting 19 of these prisoners as more moral than inaction (it just isn't the most moral action). But gosh dangit! Now I don't know what I'm supposed to be contrary to!

[TheeXile]

Creaphis said:
I respect utilitarianism for having a foundation in something other than divine edict, and it tends to color my moral decisions, but ultimately I work through moral dilemmas on a case-by-case basis.

I prefer to think of higher morality not in terms of divinity so much as in just any possible general higher-level abstractions of 'reality' that there could be. Whether one actually exists or not is not the question. If anything, you could apply a rudimentary form of Pascal's wager logic and safely assume you have nothing to gain but everything to lose from not believing, at least.

In other words, when possible, we really should try to believe in some form of higher morality by choice; even without a specific "divine" cause to go with it. Not believing in anything at all (which is pretty much what utilitarianism is about) is the founding principal of moral nihilism, which basically defeats the whole purpose of being an intelligent being.


If there indeed is a purpose, that is.

[GreyGhost]

Creaphis said:

You know, I actually expected to see more of a pro-utilitarianism attitude on these boards . . . But gosh dangit! Now I don't know what I'm supposed to be contrary to!

It's a conspiracy - we're doing our best to cramp your style. ;-)

[exp(x)]

GreyGhost said:

It's a conspiracy - we're doing our best to cramp your style. ;-)

It's for the greater good.

[Csonicgo]

Skeletor said:

Jim is in a small South American town as a tourist. Along a wall are twenty Indians who are about to be shot. The captain, noticing Jim is a visitor, offers Jim the chance to shoot one Indian and the rest will be freed. However, if he does not shoot the one, then all twenty will be killed. Given that he cannot stop them and the Indians cannot escape what should Jim do?

Well, since he's a tourist,he should ask for a wide angle lens.

[kristus]

This is an terrible example indeed. And not because people get caught up in the details. Because if the details didn't matter. You could just ask the question. Would you kill one innocent, to save 19? And there's so many variables in the "story" that the original expected question, of doing a lesser evil for a greater good is quickly lost.

Or maybe I'm the only one to think that a straight question, is the best way to get a straight answer. If you want a philosophical answer, ask a hypothetical question. But be prepared to elaborate on it, a well as getting an answer that is something entirely different than what you may have thought you were asking in the first place.

First of all, the question isn't should Jim do nothing or should he kill one of them. It is quite simply, what should he do.

It's safe to say, the Indians, are mainly innocent. If they weren't the captain would be unlikely to be willing to let 19 of them go, just for the opportunity to fuck with Jim. Considering the scenario, the captain is probably a quite questionable character himself, and it's unlikely that he'd honor the promise he made if Jim DID kill one of them to save the rest. So it's implausible, that by killing one, he will save the others.

[Creaphis]

TheeXile said:

I prefer to think of higher morality not in terms of divinity so much as in just any possible general higher-level abstractions of 'reality' that there could be. Whether one actually exists or not is not the question. If anything, you could apply a rudimentary form of Pascal's wager logic and safely assume you have nothing to gain but everything to lose from not believing, at least.

In other words, when possible, we really should try to believe in some form of higher morality by choice; even without a specific "divine" cause to go with it. Not believing in anything at all (which is pretty much what utilitarianism is about) is the founding principal of moral nihilism, which basically defeats the whole purpose of being an intelligent being.


If there indeed is a purpose, that is.

Of course there's a purpose. It's whatever we decide is our purpose. If we decide that our purpose is to find a logical basis for moral action, and then perform deeds that are good according to this basis, is this not more noble than conforming to an existing moral code out of fear of the possibility of divine retribution?

Linking utilitarianism to The Joker is senseless. "Not believing in anything at all," or rather, not approaching a puzzle with existing biases in regards to it, has allowed us to make all of history's great scientific and philosophical leaps. To hold existing notions as true without questioning them is to refuse to learn what reality can teach us, which basically defeats the whole purpose of being an intelligent being.

[Csonicgo]

How about this: He takes the gun, commands the indians to attack the captain. He gets a souveneir and 20 new friends.

How could you go wrong? Is it really this easy to own an entire school of thought? Utilitarianism sucks.

[exp(x)]

Did Myk die? He should be all over this thread.

[TheeXile]

Creaphis said:

Linking utilitarianism to The Joker is senseless. "Not believing in anything at all," or rather, not approaching a puzzle with existing biases in regards to it, has allowed us to make all of history's great scientific and philosophical leaps. To hold existing notions as true without questioning them is to refuse to learn what reality can teach us, which basically defeats the whole purpose of being an intelligent being.

I wasn't saying Utilitarianism IS moral nihilism, mind you. It's just what I see its logical absolute conclusion would have to be. If killing one life to save others is okay, then you've just placed a distinct value on a given life. That's when the floodgates open. That's why I made that link.

Though I'll admit that's the far extreme case. But it is a dilemma that'll unavoidably niggle in the back of your mind once you begin on the path of compromise in any way.



Anyway, that said, I agree that existing notions obstruct reason and intelligence. However there should be nothing within our sciences or technological achievements (products of our intelligence, in other words) that ought to require us to question the basics of morality. At least, not yet. And not unless there's really no other choice (like how to solve eventual overpopulation, which I fear will be an ugly and unavoidable issue to come within our lifespans).



An ironic thing to say, considering I just got done saying we should "believe" in some higher morality. :P

[Sharessa]

exp(x) said:

Did Myk die? He should be all over this thread.

Good question. Where the Hell is he?