PL0050 - •In principle it is immoral to hit someone in...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 9-20-05•In principle, it is immoral to hit someone in the face, but a utilitarian might say that it could cause pleasurable results in the future, and therefore might be a good utilitarian thing to do.•If you were to just examine the conse-quences of utilitarianism, maybe it would be OK, not good or bad, to slap someone in the face because nothing would result from it.•if consequences are that unpre-dictable, then how can we make any difference at all.•EXAMPLE: someone has to choose b/t Stanford U. and Bob Jones College. The person will Fnd true love @ Bob Jones, but isnʼt he/she crazy for going to Bob Jones?•MILL: It still follows from utilitarianism that you should not beat up your fellow students b/c the likelihood is that it wonʼt help anybody.•MILL: we do not know the conse-quences of hitting someone, but we know that they probably donʼt want to be hit, so we should go ahead and not hit that person. Thereʼs no way to pre-dict every consequence.•HARDIN: we are here and we act with what we know a/b the consequences, I wouldnʼt go scold the person who re-jected Hitler from art school. That ad-missions ofFcer acted on what he/she knew about the consequences of his/her actions.•PPL following utilitarianism can only think of their immediate sphere of in¡u-ence b/c there is no way to predict the butter¡y effect of what someone might do.•If we have to decide w/ uncertainty, we have to cling to what weʼve got right now, and we canʼt retroactively consid-ered bad people.•we canʼtthink poorly of someone who is driving perfectly and accidentally hits someone.•We canthink poorly of someone who is driving drunk and doesnʼt hit anyone.•Mill bases his argument on expected outcome on the fact that most ppl are operating on roughly the same set of data.•Millʼs objection to killing one person to save Fve, or such dis-utopian scenarios is that such a society where this was acceptable would be horrible and would lead to major problems in the society. THIS IS CALLED RULE UTILITARIAN-ISM. •HARDINtalks about societies that treat minorities badly. While in theory, mak-ing a small group miserable to make a much larger group happy might be utili-tarian, HARDIN argues that in the real world, this consequence doesnʼt follow. This leads to civil strife. •What if torturing one person made the entire world happy? HARDIN says that this would require new laws of physics and could never really happen. (The “Get Real” objection)•This is how HARDIN reaches the topic, the limits of reason. If we have real life examples, then none of these hypothetical things would be able to happen. Therefore the standard objec-tion to utilitarianism (what if...?) doesnʼt really matter....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/09/2008 for the course PHIL 0050 taught by Professor Roos during the Fall '08 term at Brown.

Page1 / 24

PL0050 - •In principle it is immoral to hit someone in...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online