My problem with ultilitarianism

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » My problem with ultilitarianism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 06:46 pm
There are many arguments against utilitarianism. Some argue that it is nearly impossible to calculate all of the possible outcomes of an act if you are seeking happiness for the greatest number.

Here is a problem I have with utilitarianism. The example of the train and the innocent people tied to the track is a good one. On one track there is one person tied up. On the other track there are five people tied up. The train will kill the five people if someone doesn't pull the lever and let it kill the one person. By utilitarian standards, saving the five people and sacrificing the one person is the right thing to do because it results in happiness for a greater number. One problem I have with that is that the utilitarian has somehow forgotten that the one person is also innocent, and the lives of the five people are individual, and those individual lives are not more valuable than the life of another innocent person. I would therefore try and stop the train to save all six people, but I would not pull the lever and kill the one person. By pulling that lever I have assumed that one stranger's life is worth more than another stranger's life, and I have killed one innocent person to save five. That doesn't seem right at all.

Another problem is this -- let's say that the one person was my mother or child. I would most certainly pull the lever to save my mother or child. I would feel guilty in the end, but I would fell worse if I let a loved one die. Utilitarianism doesn't allow any room for the recognition of the human value of family or friendship in this type of a situation.

What do you guys think?
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 06:51 pm
@hue-man,
The utilitarians just want the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

If the five people tied up on the track were Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, a serial killer, a psychopath, and a half human half demon spawn of Satan, and the 1 person is Mother Teresa or Gandhi, then the utilitarians would say you should let the train slam the five people, because in the long run, the one living produces more happiness than the five.

But all things being equal, if all six produced the same amount happiness, then it's right to only sacrifice one, not the five.'

And therein lies the utiliarians problem, how can you tell whether the five or the one produces more happiness in the long run.

As for the saving the family member against a stranger, the utiliarians would say, "What entitles you to overturn the dictates of impartial and pure reason?" In other words, familial relations play no rational part in morality or moral calculation.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 07:08 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:
As for the saving the family member against a stranger, the utiliarians would say, "What entitles you to overturn the dictates of impartial and pure reason?" In other words, familial relations play no rational part in morality or moral calculation.


And that is my problem with utilitarianism. It fails to recognize the values of family and fellowship in making these types of decisions. Furthermore, by utilitarian standards wouldn't it be right for me to kill myself if it would help save more people? That's the altruistic aspect of utilitarianism, and one that I disagree with by the way. Universal human values and appetites seem to have little to no say in utilitarianism.

Still, regardless of utilitarianism or not, I don't see how can justify pulling the lever to kill the five people instead of someone that you're closer too. It may be understandable from a human perspective, but I still think it's wrong.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 09:58 pm
@hue-man,
The other problem I have with utilitarianism, is the same ireconcilable problem I have with all ethics. Projected good, in this case happiness. I suppose in the train scenario we can assume that staying alive would make people happy. But utilitarianism/ists have to define the greater good somehow and then it is projected upon the 'innocent'. Among a group of fatalists the greater good might be to do nothing in the train scenario. (note: one need not be religious to be fatalist)
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 2 May, 2009 10:08 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
The other problem I have with utilitarianism, is the same ireconcilable problem I have with all ethics. Projected good, in this case happiness. I suppose in the train scenario we can assume that staying alive would make people happy. But utilitarianism/ists have to define the greater good somehow and then it is projected upon the 'innocent'. Among a group of fatalists the greater good might be to do nothing in the train scenario. (note: one need not be religious to be fatalist)


Exactly. Utilitarianism is the philosophy of the ends justify the means, and that can be a very dangerous philosophy, especially when the innocent are sacrificed for the "greater good".
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Sun 3 May, 2009 03:02 pm
@hue-man,
Epistemologically speaking we cannot purport to know the sum total of rightmaking and wrongmaking properties of a given act. Therefore, utilitarianism, even if it would turn out to be the preferable moral position given a world where our belief-producing faculties would be less subject to imperfection, is untenable. It is possible, through epistemic justification, to know a priori and a posteriori 'moral duties.' Given all that, it is only rational to reject utilitarianism.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 3 May, 2009 03:23 pm
@rhinogrey,
hue-man wrote:

One problem I have with that is that the utilitarian has somehow forgotten that the one person is also innocent, and the lives of the five people are individual, and those individual lives are not more valuable than the life of another innocent person. I would therefore try and stop the train to save all six people, but I would not pull the lever and kill the one person.


In the thought experiment, you can only pull the lever or not pull the lever. There is no stopping the train. Either one person dies, or five. That no one dies is not an option - that's the power of the thought experiment.

hue-man wrote:
By pulling that lever I have assumed that one stranger's life is worth more than another stranger's life, and I have killed one innocent person to save five. That doesn't seem right at all.


No: by pulling the lever you have assumed that the lives of five strangers is more important than the life of one stranger.

hue-man wrote:
Another problem is this -- let's say that the one person was my mother or child. I would most certainly pull the lever to save my mother or child. I would feel guilty in the end, but I would fell worse if I let a loved one die. Utilitarianism doesn't allow any room for the recognition of the human value of family or friendship in this type of a situation.


Utilitarianism does allow for the recognition of placing value on family and friends: utilitarianism simply states that these values are irrelevant when making moral decisions. That instead of making moral decisions based on personal biases, we should make moral decisions based on what promotes the greatest amount of happiness.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 08:24 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
In the thought experiment, you can only pull the lever or not pull the lever. There is no stopping the train. Either one person dies, or five. That no one dies is not an option - that's the power of the thought experiment.


Well that's my point. If I wasn't able to stop the train and save everyone I wouldn't pull the lever at all.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
No: by pulling the lever you have assumed that the lives of five strangers is more important than the life of one stranger.


Exactly my point. I have assumed that the life of one stranger is less important than the lives of five strangers. If you pull the lever you are causing the death of the one person because the train was originally going to hit the five people. In that sense, you are killing that one person by pulling the lever and causing the train to hit them.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Utilitarianism does allow for the recognition of placing value on family and friends: utilitarianism simply states that these values are irrelevant when making moral decisions. That instead of making moral decisions based on personal biases, we should make moral decisions based on what promotes the greatest amount of happiness.


Didn't I basically say that utilitarianism does not recognize human values when making moral decisions?

Do you think it would be right or wrong to pull the lever so that the train hits the five people instead of your family member or friend?
 
kidzi
 
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 09:26 am
@hue-man,
Quote:
If I wasn't able to stop the train and save everyone I wouldn't pull the lever at all.
And thus kill all six people which would even be worse.

Quote:
If you pull the lever you are causing the death of the one person because the train was originally going to hit the five people. In that sense, you are killing that one person by pulling the lever and causing the train to hit them.
But that is exactly the way utilitarianism does not work. You cannot simply look at one half, regardless of the other but they have to be compared. Just saying that you kill one would totally falsify your action since it has to be seen before the background that you saved five as well. So for all I care declare that you saved four persons instead of five. And even if you did not ask me, I surely think that it would be more correct concerning moral measurements to "kill" my family member to save the other people. But would I do it? Hello no.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 09:33 am
@kidzi,
kidzi wrote:
And thus kill all six people which would even be worse.

But that is exactly the way utilitarianism does not work. You cannot simply look at one half, regardless of the other but they have to be compared. Just saying that you kill one would totally falsify your action since it has to be seen before the background that you saved five as well. So for all I care declare that you saved four persons instead of five. And even if you did not ask me, I surely think that it would be more correct concerning moral measurements to "kill" my family member to save the other people. But would I do it? Hello no.


If I didn't direct the train towards the track with the one person then it would continue on its original course, thus killing the five people. The one person would live and the five people would die. The moral responsibility lies not with me, but with the person who put those people on the track in the first place. Moral responsibility would only lie with me if I were to redirect the train towards the one person instead of the five people.

I agree that it would still be wrong if the one person was a family member and I redirected the train to kill the five people on the other side of the track, but I also couldn't see myself allowing the train to hit a family member or friend vs. five strangers. Let's hope that we never end up in such a situation. lol
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 11:52 am
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
If I didn't direct the train towards the track with the one person then it would continue on its original course, thus killing the five people. The one person would live and the five people would die. The moral responsibility lies not with me, but with the person who put those people on the track in the first place. Moral responsibility would only lie with me if I were to redirect the train towards the one person instead of the five people.

Would not your very inaction give you some moral stake in the situation? Can't lack of action be just as morally right or wrong as an action?
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 11:54 am
@rhinogrey,
rhinogrey wrote:
Would not your very inaction give you some moral stake in the situation? Can't lack of action be just as morally right or wrong as an action?


Lack of action can only be morally right or wrong if the agent is personally responsible for causing the situation.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 04:50 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:

Exactly my point. I have assumed that the life of one stranger is less important than the lives of five strangers. If you pull the lever you are causing the death of the one person because the train was originally going to hit the five people. In that sense, you are killing that one person by pulling the lever and causing the train to hit them.


Yes, but by not pulling the lever you are killing five people to save one. So: should you A) kill one person, or, B) kill five people?

hue-man wrote:
Didn't I basically say that utilitarianism does not recognize human values when making moral decisions?


You said: "Utilitarianism doesn't allow any room for the recognition of the human value of family or friendship in this type of a situation." Which is not the case. Utilitarianism does not deny the recognition that you will probably love your mother more than any five strangers. Instead, Utilitarianism says that this hierarchy of humanity, based on personal affection of the agent, should not be considered in the process of making a moral decision.

hue-man wrote:
Do you think it would be right or wrong to pull the lever so that the train hits the five people instead of your family member or friend?


Wrong. By allowing the five to perish in favor of your friend, you have allowed your personal (egotistical) interests to trump moral interests. Those five people all have friends and families. The loss of those five will universally cause more pain and suffering than the pain and suffering you endure at the loss of your one friend.

hue-man wrote:
Lack of action can only be morally right or wrong if the agent is personally responsible for causing the situation.


I disagree. Further, I do not believe that you agree with this statement.

For example: you walk by a pond and notice a small child drowning. If the above statement is true, then you can decide not to save the child and stroll on by without having acted immorally. However, I think we can all agree that if we walk by a pond and see a small child drowning that we have a moral responsibility to save the child. You did not cause the situation, the situation being that a child is drowning, yet you still have a moral responsibility to act.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 07:46 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Yes, but by not pulling the lever you are killing five people to save one. So: should you A) kill one person, or, B) kill five people?


I wouldn't pull the lever at all because I would feel personally responsible for causing the death of one innocent person. I am not personally responsible for those people being on the track. The person who put them on the track is the person who should be held morally accountable.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
You said: "Utilitarianism doesn't allow any room for the recognition of the human value of family or friendship in this type of a situation." Which is not the case. Utilitarianism does not deny the recognition that you will probably love your mother more than any five strangers. Instead, Utilitarianism says that this hierarchy of humanity, based on personal affection of the agent, should not be considered in the process of making a moral decision.


I see what you're saying . . . but what I was trying to say was that utilitarianism doesn't give you any leg room or exceptions for cases where your personal interest is involved . . . but like you said, that's egoism, and I disagree with egoism just as much as I disagree with altruism.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Wrong. By allowing the five to perish in favor of your friend, you have allowed your personal (egotistical) interests to trump moral interests. Those five people all have friends and families. The loss of those five will universally cause more pain and suffering than the pain and suffering you endure at the loss of your one friend.


I agree that it would be wrong, but I couldn't see myself choosing strangers over a family member or friend. Man, I would feel really bad if that happened. Good thing that the odds of anyone getting into this type of a situation are very slim.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
I disagree. Further, I do not believe that you agree with this statement.

For example: you walk by a pond and notice a small child drowning. If the above statement is true, then you can decide not to save the child and stroll on by without having acted immorally. However, I think we can all agree that if we walk by a pond and see a small child drowning that we have a moral responsibility to save the child. You did not cause the situation, the situation being that a child is drowning, yet you still have a moral responsibility to act.


I agree that I would be morally obligated to help save the child, but not at the expense of my own life or well being (I can't swim, lol). That's altruism, and it's just as bad of an ethical idea as egoism. However, there is a difference between the situation with the drowning child and the situation with the people on the train track. In the situation with the people on the track, you have to pull the lever thus killing one person to save five. In that situation you are actively killing an innocent person to save five other innocent people. I believe that's wrong.
 
Ultracrepidarian
 
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 05:42 pm
@hue-man,
In war and dangerous emergency situations people make such choices. Why isn't the example of a fireman, a fire, and six people in different rooms?

Normally, the life of some doesn't come with the death of others.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 01:53 am
@hue-man,
The fact that utilitarianism works only in the most artificial and oversimplified circumstances, and even then objectionbly, tell us it is pathetically ill-equiped as an ethical system with which to deal with the moral complexities and ambiguitys of the real world.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 05:52 am
@avatar6v7,
Most ills associated with utilitarianistic decisions can usually be drawn back to using the wrong tool at the wrong time. Many decisions - ethical decisions - can't be based on matters of utility at all.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 01:09 am
@Khethil,
avatar6v7 wrote:
The fact that utilitarianism works only in the most artificial and oversimplified circumstances, and even then objectionbly, tell us it is pathetically ill-equiped as an ethical system with which to deal with the moral complexities and ambiguitys of the real world.


Does utilitarianism only work in the most artificial and oversimplified circumstances? Mill takes care to address the objection that his utilitarian calculations do not make the philosophy impractical. Essentially, he argues that he is only setting forth the measure by which to judge actions, not the precise process by which to make an action. He says that it would be absurd to make utilitarian calculations in the face of every moral question, and that instead, people will draw on their experiences to make the decision.

Essentially, utilitarianism is the way to evaluate decisions, not the way to make them. Just as the process of evaluating music is remarkably different from the process of creating music.
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 10:38 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:

Essentially, utilitarianism is the way to evaluate decisions, not the way to make them. Just as the process of evaluating music is remarkably different from the process of creating music.


It fails in this sense also for the same reason I said above. We cannot purport to know all the rightmaking and wrongmaking properties associated with an event, even in retrospect, much less their summation -- and therefore utilitarianism is rendered useless and untenable.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 07:43 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita;61055 wrote:
If the five people tied up on the track were Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, a serial killer, a psychopath, and a half human half demon spawn of Satan, and the 1 person is Mother Teresa or Gandhi, then the utilitarians would say you should let the train slam the five people, because in the long run, the one living produces more happiness than the five.


You mean like this? (I was tired of it after the first three.)
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=67&stc=1&d=1241833395
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » My problem with ultilitarianism
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2024 at 02:37:04