From the point of view that Utilitarianism is correct, what are some interesting consequences of Utilitarianism? What are some clever methods of analysis? Anyone have any thoughts?
49% slavery
-Imp
Kind of, yes.
There’s also Bernard Williams’ Jim argument. Jim is a doctor in a South-American country ruled by a ruthless dictator. Jim is in the situation where he faces 20 rebels. The dictator lets Jim, in honor of his presence, kill one of the prisoners and tells him that the others would be released. If Jim doesn’t make up his mind, all of them will be killed.
Apparently, simple act utilitarianism requires one to readily kill one of the prisoners, so that the others may benefit from his choice.
Doesn’t sound totally unreasonable, but Williams insists that it is. Ever seen Ostrov ?
That’s interesting.
I may have to check out Williams.
Oh oh. I put Ostrov in there cause it tackles, among others, guilt. Guilt for having killed someone. Didn’t see that mentioned in the imdb entry. It’s an interesting movie, and it offers some cool insight into Eastern Orthodoxy monastic life. It’s Dostoyevski-ish.
No that’s exactly what I was thinking:
When put into that position it is perhaps best to offer yourself to be killed in place of the one you might choose. If everyone in the town were to take this lead the dictator would a) have to literally try and kill whoever by himself b) Adopt his strategy, and thus morality a little bit.
Is this close to Williams’ line of thinking?
M.S.,
That sounds like Kurt Vonnegut’s story about a revolutionary who highjacks a plane and captures a politician and his family, a military leader and the entourage. The revolutionary has the captives act as chess pieces on a large board. He says that the rules are that any piece that is forfieted among the captives will be taken out and shot. Believing that will happen given the only evidence he has (people being led away, gunshots in the distance), the politician sacrifices his own son in a play that would guarantee the freedom of the remainder of the captives. What happens? Check it out!
The case with Jim and the Indians is weird. By “weird” I mean, some people seem to agree that requiring Jim shoot one of the natives in cold blood is wrong. I think it’s so obviously right that it’s ridiculous to even consider the other option. Either 1 person dies, or else 20 people die, and the only additional consequence to killing the 1 person is guilt??? What kind of selfish bastard values his own lack of guilt over the lives of 19 others?