Utilitarianism and Morality

[Anonymouse]

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.....

Either you cannot grasp the natural rights argument or you're not making sense. You are misunderstanding the moral claim. The non-aggression axiom doesn't state that all aggression is wrong. Only the initiation of aggression. Retaliatory or defensive force is not ruled out as wrong. I am a libertarian not a pacifist. If someone is trying to kill me, the non-aggression axiom does not place a legal restriction on me.

[Darorinag]

Either you cannot grasp the natural rights argument or you're not making sense. You are misunderstanding the moral claim. The non-aggression axiom doesn't state that all aggression is wrong. Only the initiation of aggression. Retaliatory or defensive force is not ruled out as wrong. I am a libertarian not a pacifist. If someone is trying to kill me, the non-aggression axiom does not place a legal restriction on me.

First of all, I am not talking about the non-aggression axiom. I am talking about natural rights to life, liberty, etc. in light of utilitarianism. Second, I am talking about philosophical utilitarianism rather than a practical one. Hence, I am applying purely philosophical theories and axioms to a strictly practical issue. If people have the natural right to life, under no circumstances is that right to be violated.

Edit: I must add that there is a difference between NATURAL rights and LEGAL rights (and I'm not saying that there SHOULD be a disctinction between the two).

[Anonymouse]

What you are doing here is begging the question. Natural rights is where the non-aggression axiom comes from - that coercion, aggression, violence on innocence is unethical. That is the whole point, it is never justified, unless under self-defense or retaliation. When someone tries to kill someone they are basically xxxxxling over that, and are allowed to act in self-defense. Thus, your whole point is a non issue since I clarified this for the thousandth time.

[Darorinag]

All human beings have the natural right to life. It's not "begging the question." But I suppose you've decided to take this thread in a certain direction (i.e. self-defense theories, etc.)....

[loseyourname]

Rights can be forfeited. One way in which this is done is by either violating or attempting to violate the rights of another. Even if you don't buy that, every person also has the right to self-defense, and this overrides the right to life of an attacker.

[angelik22]

that is why, my friend, i beg there to be a differentiation between self regarding and other regarding issues-
self regarding meaning that the individual himself/herself is the best judge of thewir own interests and actions--

other regarding menaing- example-when people drive drunk- because their action can affect the lives of others-

but there also has been controversy about some things such as "wearing seat belts" while driving, -- these laws are reffered to as "Paternalistic Laws" -- --government acting like a "father"-- telling one what is best for him/herself--- the government is enforcing a law which is telling people what to do- "for their own good" because not wearing a seatbelt can only cause problems for th individual -- therefore it is a self regarding issue-- and in my own opiion the government has no right to tell people what to do for themselves- if it only involves their personal choices which do not effect others--


on the other hand we have the ethical intuitonists- who believe that we as human beings are born with a mental faculty which tells us what is right and what is wrong-- unlike utalitarianism-- which gives reasons for what is right and what is wrong-

i think Kant would beg to differ greatly with these utalitarianbeliefs- and with philosophers such as Mill.

[Anonymouse]

Rights can be forfeited. One way in which this is done is by either violating or attempting to violate the rights of another. Even if you don't buy that, every person also has the right to self-defense, and this overrides the right to life of an attacker.

Precisely my point. Dan read carefully.

[The Ostritch]

First of all, I would like someone to clarify something for me - are we talking about Utilitarianism within the frame of Democracy, some other type of structured government, or any type of structured government in general?

Moreover, killing one man to save ten will not necessarily benefit the greater half in the long run because there exists such thing as uncertainty or, rather, unpredictability of human behavior. One does not know for certain whether or not the ten saved men will cause more harm in the future; and so we loop ad infinitum. That, of course -- though maybe only prima facie -- suggests that no action whatsoever should be taken against one who shows aggression against the other ten. The reason we have run into this problem is because we have not defined whether the decision to kill the one man is made by the ten in danger, or by some other, centralized authority. Then again, even if such centralized authority does exist, this authority would be required to be completely pure of prejudice in order to make the most sound decisions - which is impossible.

The best way out of this labyrinth is variable punishment, which is what Democracy practices. The problem with the whole equation is that the initial question did not take into account variable punishment. It clearly stated murder, or elimination of aggression by way of murder.

[Darorinag]

Even if you don't buy that, every person also has the right to self-defense, and this overrides the right to life of an attacker.

The right to self-defense is not a natural right. The right to life, however, IS. Now, we could argue that self-defense is a means of protecting the natural right of a person; but fact is, it DOES violate the natural rights of another person. From YOUR perspective, it would be right, because it's a defense of your rights, but in a universal framework, it's not.

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Ostritch.

[Anonymouse]

Democracy is perhaps the worst thing ever to befall planet earth, but that will wait. Perhaps I was not clear with my question, what I meant was, and I think clarified later, is the initiation of aggression. In any event, it does not matter if we are referring to Democracy, or Socialism, since political systems rely on coercion in the name of "the people" and "the greater good".

An example relating to the planes dropping the A bombs on Japan, I've had many instances of people who defended Truman's actions. The argument went along the lines of if they think it would maximize net utility (minimize their death toll) to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima against the will of the Japanese people, then we should do such. However, you face a problem when asked the question what if you, the self-acclaimed utilitarian, are in Hiroshima. What do you say then? If you say "No, it's not right to bomb me", then you are positively denying utilitarianism. If you say, "I accept being bombed to ashes for the "greater good", you are still not verifying one of utilitarianisms most extreme claim that, it's ok to do such against your will. In other words, if you pause to wonder why you should ever die for a cause, then the honest utilitarian must admit that you should not.