Utilitarianism and Morality

[Anonymouse]

Since we all know that Utilitarianism believes in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and since most of us are brought up with this vague notion of "the greatest good", I have a question. Utilitarianism would argue that if we can prevent ten murders by murdering one man, then we should do that. Do you agree with this or not?

My position is based on the natural rights argument that dates back all the way to the late Scholastics and Thomas Acquinas and popularized by Murry N. Rothbard of the Austrian school. With that said, this recognizes that initiating aggression is unethical. No matter who you are, where you are from, or where you are, it is unethical to initiate aggression against someone, because it recognizes that each person has a right to their life, liberty, and property, and self. However, I am not a pacifist, and I believe in self-defense, and that would be the only case where this would be justified. With that said, I want some feedback, to then begin my attack utilitarianism.

[angelik22]

my take on this is that utalitarianism is crap- theres no such thing as greater good- theres always the minority that suffers- just like in democracy- majority rules- but minority suffers- that's why i think that its wrong--

i also think that that notion is wrong- the situation with killing one person to save others- what makes the other people better than that one person? each person had individual rights and value- also that each person's life is [prescious no matter who they are and that killing is indeed wrong-- im not a fan of violence- unless if it depends on my life- i dont think that violence is the answer to any problem- but if its the only way you can protect youself- than let t be-- but i certainly disagree with utalitarian views--much like Mill (on utalitarianism) and his book "On Liberty" which is an interesting piece of work bt i really disagree with it....

[angelik22]

also downsides to utalitarianism- the problem with justice- how just is it to sacrifice one person for many oters?
integrity-- utalitarianism also pushes one to sacrifice integrity
there also need ot be differentiations with self regarding and other regarding issues--

[Darorinag]

. Utilitarianism would argue that if we can prevent ten murders by murdering one man, then we should do that. Do you agree with this or not?

Not only does this interfere with a human being's natural rights, it is hypocritical. I totally disagree with it.

However, I am not a pacifist, and I believe in self-defense, and that would be the only case where this would be justified.

But isn't that what is described above? It's still a violation of the natural rights of individuals; even if it's a retaliation or self-defense. It'd be hypocritical to bring in the natural rights argument to condemn the killing of one man to prevent the killing of ten men, when you, in one way or another, believe in stepping on the natural rights of persons.

[sSsflamesSs]

Put another way:

The equation contains one healthy man, and 10 men that are in desperate need of transplants. Now, if they kill the healthy man, take his organs, and donate them to the 10 sick men, they will live.

I'll basically be repeating what has been said already by saying that I am against Utilitarianism. Everyone has the right to life and all that comes with it (except stupid people ....just kidding.....sort of ). Who is to decide who's going to live or die?

Perhaps I haven't thought this through, but can anyone provide examples that would make opposing Utilitarianism more difficult?

[Sip]

Anon ... about murdering one man to prevent ten murders and the concept of initiating agression:

I say if the threat by that one man against the ten is imminent, then that one was the one that has initiated agression. But if that one man has not shown any sure signs of the agression, then murdering him is wrong according to your initiating agression line of thought. This is similar in concept to the movie "minority report" where criminals were being punished before they commited the crime.

About utilitarianism ... I don't think it's the answer to everything but I see some value in that kind of thought. Sometimes it is inevitable anyway ... for example with the videos of terrorists kidnapping civilians in Iraq ... sometimes it's just not worth risking more lives to save just one.

[Anonymouse]

But isn't that what is described above? It's still a violation of the natural rights of individuals; even if it's a retaliation or self-defense. It'd be hypocritical to bring in the natural rights argument to condemn the killing of one man to prevent the killing of ten men, when you, in one way or another, believe in stepping on the natural rights of persons.

It is not hypocrtical. If you do not understand natural rights theory, then that is different, but otherwise above, you are warping the natural rights argument to something it is not. Like I said, if someone is trying to kill me, I will, in self-defense kill them first. You are arguing a strawman for I already addressed this point.

[Darorinag]

Seapahn, but that would be hypocritical, no? You can't rely on the theory of people's natural right to life for one case, then violate it for another.....

[Sip]

I don't think I've said anything about natural right to life.

If a guy is holding the trigger to a bomb that is going to kill 10 people and he is threatening to do it, then he has initiated the agression and must be dealt with. But if a guy has some gene with the potential to become a serial killer, then I don't think he has done anything wrong.

[Anonymouse]

Anon ... about murdering one man to prevent ten murders and the concept of initiating agression:

I say if the threat by that one man against the ten is imminent, then that one was the one that has initiated agression. But if that one man has not shown any sure signs of the agression, then murdering him is wrong according to your initiating agression line of thought. This is similar in concept to the movie "minority report" where criminals were being punished before they commited the crime.

About utilitarianism ... I don't think it's the answer to everything but I see some value in that kind of thought. Sometimes it is inevitable anyway ... for example with the videos of terrorists kidnapping civilians in Iraq ... sometimes it's just not worth risking more lives to save just one.

But the one man in this case has no choice. He will have his life and property violated for the greater good of ten people not being murdered, according to utilitarianism. I find such a utilitarian argument is self-defeating, as it is arging we should engage in something that we shouldn't engage in.

Utilitarianism is self-contradictory, because it would invariable result in the minimization of everyone's utility if practiced in pure form, economically speaking. This is because it would mandate stuff like murdering people if you thought it would maximize utility, or redistributing wealth/property from one person to another to maximize utility ( the present welfare-warfare State). This results in time preferences being greatly increased, which results in the decivilization of society.

However, for example, in the case of the Atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The example you brought up, reminded me of an interesting point. When you know, with certainty, that the plane is going to drop an A-Bomb on you, can you act in self-defense, i.e. would you shoot the plane down and the pilot? The answer is an obvious yes.