Consider the above. How do we calculate the nobility/moral virtue in this act? It is straightforwardly an example of thousands of people dying in horrible agony when only one had to. And yet, the point of this moment in the movie is to potray virtuous people doing a virtuous thing and I strongly suspect that most people who see this movie are indeed compelled to see it that way.
So, a couple of questions. Are we witnessing virtue here, and does this example of virtue contradict utilitarianism?
My feeling with respect to the clip is that the point of “I am Spartacus” is an act of defiance, standing up to an oppressive system, so you might make a case for a “greater good” in which it speeds the end of oppression, or gives hope.
Of course, it’s just a film, and I would have my doubts about the principle ever having been played out historically in this ideal manner as a certain utilitarian perspective would be liable to win out within the “real” world.
The example in the clip, if actually occurred in reality, would effect beyond those people through stories, legends, and tales of that moment; likely passed throughout all of humanity with a moral lesson to be provided to all; Sure, its utilitarianism if that is the case. The lives of the few who would be “slaughtered” ( I assume that is what happens? I never saw the movie) through that defiant act could have a reverberating effect on the future of humanity throughout all of time that may improve the quality of life for all in ways that one may consider to be a butterfly effect.
Firstly, it’s not exactly utilitarianism since it’s the greatest good for the most important person, not the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Secondly, if one volunteers one’s own life, its’ not an issue of utilitarianism but voluntarist virtue. I, myself, am also not a fan of utilitarianism, but this isn’t it.
This is a real stretch of utilitarianism’s boundaries. These people had no idea what story or long-term effect could have arisen from their actions, so it’s not utilitarianism. Using your definition, any act could be utilitarian, since it could possibly lead to a story of great effect.
Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn’t. Could it have been their intent? Could it have been at least one of the groups intent? If so, it would be utilitarianism in practice.
No, it’s speculation in practice. Utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people, not what might be the greatest good for what might be the greatest numbeer of people. Using your “logic,” stepping on a butterfly could be utilitarian since it might lead to the cure for cancer.
No, there is logic and reason behind my ultimate outcome, it is not just some random possibility. It requires more conditions after that, but nonetheless, people often act in ways that go beyond the immediate results, this is normal and it occurs every day. The outcome would be typical as described Whether it comes to fruition or not is irrelevant, but it is very sensible for my outcome to occur with such an epic event. Whether its epic enough, well, open for argument sure, I’m only going off a simple clip and knowledge of human nature and similar events that lead to legends just the same. That would certainly be best for the greatest number of people, or an attempt to be best for the greatest number of people, even if it affects their executioners, perhaps it effects future scenarios by their executioners, it goes beyond them. The event was bigger than them, that was apparent, hence the sacrifice.
Wow, you really like to push a terrible position. There is no logic and reason behind your “ultimate outcome.” Those men had no idea whether their actions would lead to any greater good then or in the future, whether the event was “bigger than them” or not. So, it was still what might be the greatest good for what might be the greatest number of people. That’s no different from stepping on a butterfly, and it’s not utilitarianism.
I really have to ask you at this point. What exactly is your education, and how much of utilitarianism have you studied? Your arguments have been quite poor so far.
While I prefer virtue ethics to utilitarianism, and agree it’s virtue (or possibly arguably deontology against act utilitarianism), it only highlights the difference. The film doesn’t contradict, insofar as it doesn’t show that the act was moral - it could be crude emotional propaganda. If the argument is that the ad populum emotional response is a test of morals, Nazi films equating Jews to rats and cockroaches could be seen as making a successful moral argument against Judaism as long as the Germans watching it were compelled to agree. Morality as a philosophical discipline tends to look for more rational grounds.
I agree with Only Humean and in a way with WW_III_angry.
The question become what is useful? The usual criterion to reduce harm is not really absolute, ‘calculations’ are not so straightforward.
Let’s consider the example of Salvo D’Acquisto. Would you say that he was moved to sacrifice himself because he was a utilitarian?
Besides, I do not think that Kubrick had a specific moral intent with this scene, at least not in the sense you seem to imply. I guess that in this case “I am Spartacus” can be taken to mean something like “Je suis Charlie”. It can be seen as the ultimate rebellion to slavery, better die as Spartacus than live on as slaves. This position is also presented by Seneca in his essay on suicide. So, yes, let’s call it ‘virtue’. Is that opposed to ‘useful’? Is that so useless? Well, there is the question.
Politically it is, they fatally compromised the life of their party while they should have resisted waiting for more favourable times for a new uprising. Or just in order to exist, to hold on and then pass the ‘mission’ to new recruits. As an example, Rabbis in medieval Spain came to a doctrine by which Jews should fake conversion instead of being annihilated, and that would have been more compliant with the divine Law than futile sacrifice. In this case it would appear that virtue is not truly moral if it is irremediably useless, if it becomes suicide. On the other side the early Christian Church grew strong soaked by the blood of martyrs (martyrein in ancient Greek means to witness) and they all became saints, heroes of virtue.
So there may be perfectly legitimate considerations based on utility even in this case, but that utility is not exactly that petty reckoning you seem to despise.
Inedeed, and I have never meant to cut anything.
I had no real point to make, unless that it is not clear what is this ‘utility’ is after all.
I wouldn’t know if he really saw it that way, he never told me… Whether this would constitute “the greatest good for the greatest number” is something that is clear to you, not to me. It’s not evident to me that those lives were absolutely sacred and saving them was moral per se. And I am a bit perplexed by the fact that, if by greatest good you mean those lives, then that would be the very same greatest good Salvo gave away. I guesst one may question the value this greatest good could have had for him. I guess it’s allowed to consider that he might have done it for himself as he could not stand and not acting, without a real concern for those villagers. Maybe it was just empathy and it could have been indifferent to him whether the lives to save were one or many. Maybe it was just for his own redemption and salvation. Maybe he was just too tired of anything and seized the first good opportunity…
Yet, these are only ‘vague and possible considerations’ and, as I said, I never talked to him.
So when WWIII writes «[…] would effect beyond those people through stories, legends, and tales of that moment; likely passed throughout all of humanity with a moral lesson to be provided to all; Sure, its utilitarianism if that is the case». I see his point. I guess there’s a way to argue that even in that case one can see their death as compatible with utilitarianism, that there was a usefulness in their death. However, according to the notion of utility one wants to consider, it would equally be possible to maintain that those deaths were useless pride for no greater good.
Period.
Firstly, if you can’t explain your position, and you clearly can’t, an unfunny pun won’t make up for it. Secondly, if you didn’t have a point to make, you wouldn’t have posted. Thirdly, utiity is very clear: The quality or condition of being useful; usefulness.
Whatever he thought was irrelevant. It was utilitarian since he enabled more people to live through his sacrifice, no matter what he thought of it. Thus, it was the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
It doesn’t matter if it’s clear to you; you’re wrong. Firstly, the lives being sacred or not is irrelevant to utilitarianism and isn’t a factor. And no, Salvo’s life wasn’t the same as the others. He was one, and they were many. So the greatest good for the many was the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That’s utlitarianism.
Everything you ramble about here has nothing to do with the utilitarianism of his actions. As I showed above, Salvo’s action was definitely utilitarianism.
First you say you don’t know what utility is, and now you say what WWIII erroneously said was utilitarianism was utilitarianism? That hypocritical contradiction clearly shows you don’t know what you are talking about. And again, you show you don’t know what utilitarianism is when you say “there was a usefulness in their death.” Utilitarianism needs more than a usefulness, it needs the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Hundreds of men sacrificing themselves to save one man is the exact opposite of usefulness.
So, again, you don’t know what utilitarianism is, and you were wrong in your agreement with WWIII…period.
The clip was provided as a counter-example to utilitarianism, not an example of it. I thought that was pretty obvious.
I think the film certainly aims to show the act was moral- the way it is set up, shot, etc. makes it clear we are supposed to have moral admiration for these men. Sure, just because we are compelled to agree with propoganda doesn't mean that a morally sound position has been presented. I guess my question is that [i]if[/i] you are compelled to agree that what these men did was virtuous and moral, do you now have for yourself a counter-example to utilitarianism? Is the utilitarian obligated to say "What they did was not, in fact, moral"? I've seen a few arguments saying that the act was justified because of the effect it would have on history- striking a blow against slavery and so on. This doesn't sit right with me as the men had no idea what the future consequences of their actions would be, and indeed I don't have the impression that this is at all the reason why we are supposed to find these men admirable. Considering also that this is a fictional account, taking liberties with the story to imagine consequences not depicted seems an odd way to justify an act. But this may just me be not liking utilitarianism.
Why would it be fairly obvious if you posed this open-ended question:
If you wanted it to be “fairly obvious,” you shouldn’t have asked that open-ended question. That question made your position on the matter entirely not obvious.
Maybe, maybe not. That’s irrelevant to the fact you asked the open-ended question above, which was open to their actions being utilitarian or not. If you want to deny you asked that question, you would be delusional as well as in error.
Well, one of the puzzling things to me about utilitarianism is that as I understand it, it really doesn’t matter WHY he did it. He sacrificed 1 life for 20, so that’s a utilitarian thing to do regardless of what was in his head.
I’m more concerned with what the audience thinks than what the director meant here. When we SEE this moment in Spartacus, are we compelled to think “These men did a moral and virtuous thing”, or no? If we are, can we maintain that conviction while also maintaining utilitarianism, or must one give way to the other?
Another problem here is that this Spartacus thing is a fictional account. The story ends there, and there in fact ARE NO consequences to perform utilitarian calculations upon*. Did martyring themselves come to some great effect or did they die in vain? There is no answer because it's fiction. So literally all we have is the actions of these men (and the story beforehand leading up to these actions) hanging in space. Does that mean it's impossible to judge their actions as virtuous/moral or not? That seems very counter-intuitive to me. If the credits rolled immediately after the "I am Spartacus!" scene, I feel like I have everything I need in order to judge their actions. I don't need to wait for the sequel.
Let’s suppose. I don’t remember the movie perfectly, maybe there’s some scene afterward where a narrator says “By the way, Romans gave up slavery as a direct consequence of the crucifixtion of Spartacus’ loyal men”.