>if 51% vote to genocide the remaining 49% then that's a perfectly moral decision
This is what utilitarianists actually believe. How the fuck does anyone in ethics philosophy still take that bullshit stance seriously?
>>1139721
You don't understand utilitarianism.
In utilitarianism the moral thing is the alternative, out of ALL alternatives, that has the highest total utility.
Killing 49% of the population clearly is NOT the alternative with the highest total utility.
Retard.
Utilitarians don't generally believe in tyranny of 50%+1 majority. Hardly anybody does.
>>1139727
How is it not?
>>1139721
Yes, if those 51% would gain a lot of happiness and well-being from eliminate the remaining 41%.
Scenario 1= 200 units of happiness and well-being in the world (genocide)
Scenario 2 = -500 units of happiness and well-being in the world (no genocide)
The units of happiness are the total amount of happiness in the world.
>>1139727
If that 49% of the population is Africans, Chinese and Indians, then most certainly it is.
>>1139731
marginal utility. but still think they are retarded.
>utilitarianism popularized by Mill
>Mill literally coined the term "Tyranny of the Majority" while speaking against it
wew
>>1139721
>If I define some random situation I brought up as utility-maximizing, it creates a counterexample to utilitarianism.
brb burning all my Bentham
>>1139721
That is obviously against human nature, noone would want to live in a society where you can be voted to die. So doing that has horrible consequences for the wellbeing of everyone who's left.
If you are talking about hypothetical robot people who don't care if they can be voted to die, then your intuitions will fail to give an appropriate response. It would be a society entirely made of psychopaths, and their ideal state would be different than for regular people.
This is
>wood and ducks swim, so ducks are made of wood
level thinking.
>>1139887
>That is obviously against human nature
Are you denying that genocides happened in the past?
>>1139894
You are being retarded. Wanna try again and explain your thinking there?
>>1139921
You claimed genocides were against human nature. History shows that you are wrong. They happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future.
>>1139927
I don't think he's rejecting that genocides happen. He's rejecting that people would want to live in a democratic society that would allow people to vote on whether or not to genocide large portions of the voting population (show me one example where that happened).
>will continue to happen in the future.
Want to explain your reasoning here?
>>1139950
Nowhere was an official "democratic" vote implied, you retarded autist. It is very well possible that 51% unanimously decide to kill the other 49%.
And since you asked, here a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
(I spoonfeed you because the mere fact that you had to ask implies that you are too intellectually challenged to use google)
Everyone is given two choices to vote.
>Pick one
>I want to live
>I want to die
Whoever chooses the second can volunteer for it. This is a perfectly utilitarian vote. We can then see if there is a "this is what utilitarians think" situation OP wants to think it as.
>>1139727
>Killing 49% of the population clearly is NOT the alternative with the highest total utility
Depends
>>1139950
Ye. I don't understand how that wasn't obvious, so assumed he's trolling.
>>1139728
Well UK does for example
>>1139958
>Nowhere was an official "democratic" vote implied
Except for like, you know, in the OP.
>>1139975
Are you illiterate? I am the OP. Obviously the 49% don't get to vote. Consider a country with two ethnicities. 51% of the country are ethnicity A, the other 49% ethnicity B. One day ethnicity A unanimously decides to kill ethnicity B. Think for example of the genocide in Rwanda 1994 (I know the percentages were different, but whatever). I honestly am surprised and disgusted that I have to spell this out for you.
>>1139980
You're clearly not very familiar with the Rwandan genocide then.
>>1139950
>>will continue to happen in the future.
>Want to explain your reasoning here?
Sun has risen today like every other day in the past. Why wouldn't it rise tommorow?
>>1139990
Why would it?
>>1139950
>He's rejecting that people would want to live in a democratic society that would allow people to vote on whether or not to genocide large portions of the voting population (show me one example where that happened).
people do not vote in democracy
>>1139728
Well pretty much every country with first-past-the-post system does
>>1139980
you seem bright.
Now remind me how many laws your country has passed since you had the right to vote and how many times you indeed voted on those laws.
Show me society where your child fantasy in your OP where everybody votes is realized
>>1139721
>Thinking people's whims are the measure of the greatest good for the greatest number.
>>1140009
The shit you're making up has nothing to do with my post. Take your meds.
>>1140009
>hypothetical scenarios are too hard for me to understand
Abstract thinking isn't your strong suit, I see.
>>1139727
Define 'Utility'
>>1139993
Ay we got mr scholastic over here
>>1140009
You know the quote about theoretical situations and smart people? It fits to your post quite nicely.
>>1139760
Amen, brother.
>>1139721
That is not utilitarianism. The 51% aren't more moral, they are just more powerful.
>>1140036
This forum is called "History & Humanities", what are you doing here if you didn't expect a little scholarlyness.
>>1139727
>>1139727
>You don't understand utilitarianism.
The problem is that utility has to keep changing its scope to not seem like an insane ethics. They end up creating a sort of ethical safety net and then allowing their theory to get working when really its just dumb bullshit.
Return to Aristotle.
>>1139760
top kek, deluded idiots.
That would never happen because genociding 41% of the population would eliminate such a massive amount of potential pleasure it would not be the most rational thing to do in pursuit of pleasure.
>>1139760
Kill yourself
>>1141766
Moralistic bullshit my american friend
Positivizing Natural law was a mistake we did after WW2
Anything thats written can be changed by man hand
