Here is a novel thought experiment which I came across yesterday while on a walk. It is intended to serve as an argument against utilitarian, hedonist, social contract, and egoist ethical schools.
Suppose there is a homeless man who lives in a park. He is an innocent man; that is, he does not break the law. He is also without family or friends. He is a completely neutral man who would not be missed if he were to vanish.
Now, four men are walking through this park late one night when they come across the homeless man. These four men happen to be a little sick in the head in that they enjoy murder. They lure the homeless man back to their apartment and give him a quick, painless death which then gives these four strange men a great high which lifts up their moods, exciting them for weeks. They do not feel one speck of guilt for killing this man, and they only killed him because they feel good when they kill people.
Was it ethical for the four men to kill the hobo? Was it immoral? More people found pleasure than harm in this act, so the Utilitarianists and Randians alike should, in theory, defend the murder. I would appreciate your angles on this. Don't argue based on your feelings alone, but think rationally about why the four men's deed was justified or unjust.
>>29016495
Babby's taking his first philosophy class in community college, eh?
>>29016495
This is what autistic philosophy without common sense looks like
>>29016495
>Randians
>utilitarians
what in the fuck
>>29016559
Definitions are man-made and thus prone to error.
>>29016529
STEMqueers are virgs that spend most of their time bragging about the salaries they'll make 30 years from now and working 60+ hour weeks for their jewish masters.
>>29016597
how the fuck can you be so dumb you think that Rand would be okay with taking someone's LIFE and redistributing it to provide pleasure
that's impressively fucking wrong
Ok, how about this.
It was immoral because it involved breaking the law against murder, and breaking laws against murder would create the greater evil. Hence, breaking the law against murder is wrong.
Also OP, the pic you posted makes me want to smoke.
I'm trying to quit. Fuck.
>>29016620
Aww babby really is still stuck in college, still sees everyone else as a college kid defined by their major too! Don't worry, I was also this way when I was babby's age. Ask people what their major was first thing in a conversation.
Your questions are shit. Your intentions behind it are just to show off some special insight you've had, which is also shit. No one give a fuck about the shit you tried to talk about in real life. People have actual important shit to deal with and not babby's philosophical shit.
I'm a landlord so I'll never be dealing with mr. shekelstein as my manager, and have all the time in the world to do shit I like in my day. But you are unemployable shit, you just don't know it yet. A few years out of your shit college you'll realize it, and will beg to lick the shit off of mr. shekelstein's shoes. You are not a unique snowflake. You have no future. Your future is so shitty, that you'll find yourself jealous of that wageslave with the 60+ work week 5 years down the road. Just remember man, shit. Screencap this post and look at it 5 years down the road.
I really think you should just take Ludwig's advice to heart
>>29016762
Oh my god shut the fuck up dude.
OP posed an interesting question.
>People have actual important shit to deal with
Then is posting on /r9k/ really the best use of their time?
>>29016884
Another unique snowflake made uneasy by the fact that they are shit and have no future.
>Then is posting on /r9k/ really the best use of their time?
Fuck yes. OP's question was so worthless that anything else is more important. Just chilling and unwinding on /r9k is important, much much less shitty that OP's deep deep philosophical musings.
>>29016495
>>29016732
That still doesn't save utilitarianism as laws can protect the minority as well as the majority.
Really though, the point that needs to be clarified is what is considered "good" and what is "evil". Where is that distinction made? For most modern ideologies, it all seems to boil down to "whatever makes me feel happy is good, that which doesn't is evil",
>>29016495
I don't know why you thought this was a novel thought experiment. It's a paraphrased intuition pump based on the most common criticism of utility theory.
>>29017003
>That still doesn't save utilitarianism as laws can protect the minority as well as the majority.
Elaborate, I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>Really though, the point that needs to be clarified is what is considered "good" and what is "evil". Where is that distinction made? For most modern ideologies, it all seems to boil down to "whatever makes me feel happy is good, that which doesn't is evil",
Good rules are those that if followed would result in the least average suffering.
So, a law against murder would be good because following such a law would on the whole result in less average suffering than having murder be legal.
Goodness is following good rules. Evil is breaking them.
>>29016495
Yes it was immoral because they took the life of another man, even if nobody else cared about him he probably wanted to keep living and they took that away from him
>>29016937
That doesn't make sense though because what if op asking this question is his way of chilling and unwinding hmmmmmm???
Willfully to take one's own life or to permit another to take one's life, is in the relevant sense to alienate one's right to go on living; hence, suicide and voluntary euthanasia can both be viewed as efforts to alienate the inalienable, to give away what cannot properly be given away.
oh, and hi 2kike. I also took a few courses while I was doing my STEM wage slavery major. Your topic is ethics 101 tier btw.
>>29016495
>lives in a park. He is an innocent man; that is, he does not break the law
>Implying loitering isn't against the law
Kill the useless criminal
>>29017097
I'm kind of tired, so I'll try my best. Also, I'm pretty dumb, so don't expect too much.
>That still doesn't save utilitarianism as laws can protect the minority as well as the majority.
Utilitarianism (as I know it) can be summed up as "the greatest good for greatest number". With your focus on laws, the only "good" laws are those which aid in the the greatest number benefit as a direct result. This would invalidate such laws as slavery that directly protect the minority. For the case of murder, it could be justified as being good from a utilitarian perspective if only a minority of all people were killed and a majority obtained some degree of satisfaction. This becomes more bizzare when taken to extremes as it could end up being a case where 50.1% of all people benefit where 49.9% suffer.
This reduces humanity down to automaton to a degree, an emotionless one at that.
Think that kind of addresses your last point as well.
![immanuel-kant[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Cfn585K.jpg "immanuel-kant[1].jpg")
My nigga you be triflin. Dat shit ain't right, homie.
>>29017290
Shiiieeettt, u aint my uber mang.
u see him, tell im to hit me up, aiighht?
>>29017250
>Utilitarianism (as I know it) can be summed up as "the greatest good for greatest number".
There are a lot of different kinds of utilitarianism actually. Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism are two different kinds, but both fall under utilitarianism. Then there are positive and negative utilitarianism.
I'm a negative rule utilitarian. What I consider "good" is following a principle that would reduce the average suffering.
>With your focus on laws, the only "good" laws are those which aid in the the greatest number benefit as a direct result. This would invalidate such laws as slavery that directly protect the minority.
I would say that a law against slavery would reduce the average suffering. Slavery being legal would result in a lot of suffering of the slaves. The suffering of many wannabe slave owners who suffer because they don't get to satisfy their desire to have slaves does not outweigh the suffering of the fewer people who would be enslaved and suffer much greater pains than simply the suffering that comes when you don't get to have the slave you want.
>>29016732
The state can not be looked to for moral guidance.
At one point slavery was legal worldwide and it still is in certain parts of the world.
Even the American government had at one point rounded up the Japanese and put them into internment camps just for being japanese. Whether they were affiliated with the japanese government or not just based solely off blood. Was that right? To deny them their rights for their race?
What about when the West committed genocide against the Natives in the Americas? It was allowed by the state so is it moral?
>>29016495
>ethical
One person was harmed which was the homeless man so no it was not ethical
>immoral
Again, no. They killed him and they only got a thrill that will eventually fade.
Now, am I saying that they should be punished? No. They didn't damage anything of importance. No one will miss the homeless man and his disappearance will make no difference.
Objectively, if you are to be a law abiding citizen then yes, they should be punished However, I don't believe society was harmed in this case and therefore no action should be taken.
>>29017451
>Was that right? To deny them their rights for their race?
Yes.
>>29017451
>The state can not be looked to for moral guidance.
I would say that the only legitimate purpose of a state is to enforce feasible laws that if followed would result in the greatest average alleviation of suffering.
I should have been more clear that by "law" I didn't just mean laws codified by a state, but also moral laws (rules, if you'd prefer).
A state can have moral laws and/or it can have immoral laws.
>At one point slavery was legal worldwide and it still is in certain parts of the world.
Those laws were wrong because they did not well serve to alleviate suffering.
>What about when the West committed genocide against the Natives in the Americas? It was allowed by the state so is it moral?
No, and that's not my position.
>>29017387
How does one quantify suffering? You can claim that one person would suffer more than another, but suffering is not something that fits into a simple equation.
How can you be sure that enslavement of 20% of all people to the benefit of 80% would increase average suffering?
If there is some way to quantify it, the "problem of suffering (tm)" could be viewed as an optimization style problem, find the maximum amount of people to enslave while reducing the average suffering.
>>29017510
>Those laws were wrong because they did not well serve to alleviate suffering.
Cheap labor that can be continuously used. How is that not a benefit? It benefits the state at a class or group that is perceived to be lower. You get a product/service for next to nothing which means mainly profit. The citizens would benefit which in turn becomes taxes for the state.
>>29017510
>the only legitimate purpose of a state is to enforce feasible laws that if followed would result in the greatest average alleviation of suffering.
So basically
>make stuff that makes me happy
Make laws that would end suffering and make people comfortable?
And if the state can't do that? I'd be more concerned about the ability a state has to protect its citizens and remain competitive on a world scale.
>>29017516
>How does one quantify suffering?
Great objection. It's not easy, but empathy goes a long way. Most of us are built very similarly to others. We can generally deduce that if something would hurt us, it would also hurt someone else. Probably to a similar degree.
This isn't a foolproof thing. There needs to be more to it but I don't know what yet.
>You can claim that one person would suffer more than another, but suffering is not something that fits into a simple equation.
It actually might. We may one day have the knowledge to figure out just how much one person is suffering and calculate it by examining their brain state at a very accurate scale and comparing it to controls, or something along those lines. It's unfortunate that it's not feasible at this time to know whether that's possible and how to do it.
>How can you be sure that enslavement of 20% of all people to the benefit of 80% would increase average suffering?
Slavery involves a great deal of suffering. A lack of keeping slaves simply does not create so much suffering as experienced by being a slave.
Everything else being equal, I can't imagine a state of 100% un-enslaved people would be suffering more than a state of 20% slaves and 80% freed people many of whom would be slaveowners. I can't see how that could work.
I will agree that quantifying suffering is a problem though.
>>29017629
>Make laws that would end suffering and make people comfortable?
Yes.
>So basically
>make stuff that makes me happy
Make stuff that would decrease the amount of suffering. My own, personal suffering is important, but certainly not the only thing that matters. The suffering of others also matters.
>And if the state can't do that?
Then in my view it's not fulfilling its proper function.
>I'd be more concerned about the ability a state has to protect its citizens and remain competitive on a world scale.
If the people in a state are suffering very, very little, I would consider that a successful state even if the people in it aren't living a lifestyle similar to those of other states--especially if the people in those other states are suffering more.
As far as defense goes, it would probably be a rule that would help alleviate/prevent suffering to have defenses against attacks by hostile states.
Another point worth considering is whether suffering is inherently wrong.
Think of any story where the hero progresses upwards. Was it without struggle and suffering?
From the complete narrative, suffering was required in order to help our hero arise to their better state. Remove that suffering and they stay put, static.
>>29017647
From looking just at brain states only, all you see is mental suffering. Someone who goes from a billionaire to middle class will undoubtedly have a large degree of mental suffering. Physically, they'll more than likely be a-ok with the adjustment. Someone who is paraplegicwon't feel anything though, registering zero mental suffering, despite physically being in a pretty horrible state.
You're optimistic about science finding a way to quantify this. I'm pessimistic to be honest. Until further proof, it's generally not the best idea to just claim that "science will prove me right in the future", as it may fail to or it could prove the opposite case.
>>29016495
It takes a lot out of me not to call you a retard, but I'll answer your question.
Firat off, this is not a "novel thought experiment," because it is dumb. Even under utilitarian principles, it is illogical for the four men to kill the hobo. You don't view utility in the short term, you view it as a total sum. If the four men kill the hobo in exchange for pleasant feelings for a few weeks, this does not outweigh the potential pleasure of an entire lifetime of the hobo. It's not as fucking simple as
>four men happy is more than one sad hobo hurr durr
You weigh the substance of the pleasure (good feelings for a few weeks) vs. the substance of the pain (death for eternity). Pretty easy calculation here, don't kill hobo
>>29017762
>Another point worth considering is whether suffering is inherently wrong.
I would say yes, absolutely. In my view it is the exact definition of "evil".
>Think of any story where the hero progresses upwards. Was it without struggle and suffering?
Of course not. This is a world with a lot of evil in it. An author would have a hard time creating an epic narrative without some evil being involved, and since our brains are adapted to expecting evil, we would perhaps have a hard time "getting" a character who had faced no evil.
>From the complete narrative, suffering was required in order to help our hero arise to their better state.
But the suffering, in and of itself, was not good. It was just an evil means to a good end.
>Remove that suffering and they stay put, static.
Staying static without suffering would be fine. The only reason being static is usually bad is that it either involves suffering (pining for things, or being in a bad situation).
If everything is fine and pining and boredom weren't an issue, being static would be good.
>>29016495
>ethical, immoral, justified, unjust
This is why you are a virgin, OP.
>>29017825
Static world is a world of non-action. Would you sign up for something like that? I'm too stupid to envision a world like that.
>>29017860
stirner please go.
>>29017909
>Static world is a world of non-action. Would you sign up for something like that?
Is it a world of no suffering? Then yes, totally.
There's nothing wrong with static unless the static is causing suffering.
>>29018061
I'd love to debate this further, but I'm a wage slave, so I need to sleep.
It's been fun though, never thought I would debate something like this on R9K. Peace out friend-o.
>>29018150
Sleep well buddy, nice chatting.
They wasted a good body for a momentary high. Somebody could have used his kidneys.
>>29016762
Fucking sperg.
Get a damn grip.
Sage
