A Few Utilitarian Ones for Nalaar

[Borg Refinery]

Yes there is no moral difference.

It is easier for us to ignore those we don't see, so we do.

But donating to a charity, unless you donate a lot (look at the spreadsheets on givewell, to save one life)  is not much use and is not equivalent.

I have several issues with utilitarianism, the focus on pleasure = morality is the main issue in my opinion.

Fair enough.

I think minimising death in these scenarios is preferable.

Indeed.

Yes. Through no injust action injustice arises.

Surely it depends on how much they all have to start off with? It may be just, but it's probably not healthy.

[Nalaar]

Btw, my refutal of the first one:



Roughly 10% of money goes to actual victims espesh in corrupt countries, so charity is often a meaningless gesture in certain countries.



Wouldn't the only way be to go there and do as much good as you can yourself? AND save drowning children in front of you?

For someone concerned about that I would direct them to https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/best-charities/">//https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/best-charities/



The more transparent the charity in how much of their money makes it to those they proclaim to help, the better.

[Nalaar]

Peter Singer:



Question: If you are obligated to save the life of a child in need, is there a fundamental difference between saving a child in front of you and one on the other side of the world?



(In The Life You Can Save, Singer argues that there is no moral difference between a child drowning in front of you and one starving in some far off land. ...If you would save the nearby child, he reasons, you have to save the distant one too. He put his money where his mouth is, and started a program to help people donate to charities that do the most good.)

Yes there is no moral difference.

It is easier for us to ignore those we don't see, so we do.

Nozick (an anti-utilitarian):



Imagine that super neuroscientists have created a machine that can simulate pleasurable experiences for the rest of your life. The simulation is ultra-realistic and indistinguishable from reality. There are no adverse side effects, and specific pleasurable experiences can even be programmed into the simulation. Regarding pleasure experienced, the machine offers more than is possible in several lifetimes.



Question: Do we have any reason to not go in?

I have several issues with utilitarianism, the focus on pleasure = morality is the main issue in my opinion.

The most famous Utilitarian one.



Trolley car: In this situation, there is a runaway car. It is about to run over five people. If you pull a switch, it will run over one person instead. People die either way. Should you pull the switch?

I think minimising death in these scenarios is preferable.

Wilt Chamberlain (from Nozick): Imagine that you live in a society with 100 people. Each person pays $1 to see Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. Inequality is increased as Wilt becomes $100 wealthier and every one becomes $1 less wealthy. Is this a just state of affairs?

Yes. Through no injust action injustice arises.

[Borg Refinery]

Btw, my refutal of the first one:



Roughly 10% of money goes to actual victims espesh in corrupt countries, so charity is often a meaningless gesture in certain countries.



Wouldn't the only way be to go there and do as much good as you can yourself? AND save drowning children in front of you?

[Borg Refinery]

I'm not totally sold on utilitarianism, but some of its arguments are very strong.



Singers example of the drowning child is a great example, there is a problem with that in that nothing is ever enough, however, I think humility and acceptance of that (rather than the egotistic 'I am doing enough' etc) goes a long way.



Though I can understand why it is uncomfortable for people who don't want to accept that they are responsible for the death and misery of others. Most especially socially liberal people who feel they should be doing something.

Aren't you going to answer the other ones?



What is your reasoning...you've interrogated us and now it is your turn....

[Nalaar]

I'm not totally sold on utilitarianism, but some of its arguments are very strong.



Singers example of the drowning child is a great example, there is a problem with that in that nothing is ever enough, however, I think humility and acceptance of that (rather than the egotistic 'I am doing enough' etc) goes a long way.



Though I can understand why it is uncomfortable for people who don't want to accept that they are responsible for the death and misery of others. Most especially socially liberal people who feel they should be doing something.

[Borg Refinery]

Peter Singer:



Question: If you are obligated to save the life of a child in need, is there a fundamental difference between saving a child in front of you and one on the other side of the world?



(In The Life You Can Save, Singer argues that there is no moral difference between a child drowning in front of you and one starving in some far off land. ...If you would save the nearby child, he reasons, you have to save the distant one too. He put his money where his mouth is, and started a program to help people donate to charities that do the most good.)



Nozick (an anti-utilitarian):



Imagine that super neuroscientists have created a machine that can simulate pleasurable experiences for the rest of your life. The simulation is ultra-realistic and indistinguishable from reality. There are no adverse side effects, and specific pleasurable experiences can even be programmed into the simulation. Regarding pleasure experienced, the machine offers more than is possible in several lifetimes.



Question: Do we have any reason to not go in?



The most famous Utilitarian one.



Trolley car: In this situation, there is a runaway car. It is about to run over five people. If you pull a switch, it will run over one person instead. People die either way. Should you pull the switch?



Wilt Chamberlain (from Nozick): Imagine that you live in a society with 100 people. Each person pays $1 to see Wilt Chamberlain play basketball. Inequality is increased as Wilt becomes $100 wealthier and every one becomes $1 less wealthy. Is this a just state of affairs?