[Discussion] Utilitarian or Deontologist

[Vayne]

Utilitarian is an individual whom believe that saving many lives at the cost of one would represent a net increase in well-being or utility, and while it would be certainly be a tragic choice, utilitarians would endorse it.

Deontologist judge the morality of the act based on features intrinsic to the act itself, regardless of the consequences stemming from the act.

And now for a tease to get you thinking.

Imagine that a trolley car is going down a track. Further down the track are five people who do not hear the trolley and who will not be able to get out of the way. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough time to stop the trolley before it hits and kills them. The only way to avoid killing these five people is to switch the trolley to another track. But, unfortunately, there is one person standing on that track, also it's too close for the trolley to stop before killing him. Now imagine that there is bystander(you) standing by the track switch who must make a choice: do nothing, which leads to the death of the five people on the current track, or act to divert the the the trolley(though the lever) to the other track, which leads to the death of the single person.

Now also note: What are the five people doing there? What is that one person doing there? Maybe that one person is fixing the tracks? Or it could be that the five people are fixing the tracks.

 

[Cursed Prince]

5 people= More important than 1 guy

 

[Yusuke Urameshi]

I guess it depends on the situation and what the people are doing. However, you would think the people working on the tracks would have a schedule or something of when trollies are coming and going, knowing when and when not to stand on the tracks.

 

[Scooby Doo]

I'm utilitarian in general.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

I am between the two as both sides are too radical

Also about your scenario:
I'd let the 5 die since they are:
A) Deaf (Since I cannot just yell get the F*** out of the way)
B) Stupid (Not paying attention)
C) Incapable of dodging

That one guy is in the right place since the train wasn't going his way so he gets to live.

Natural selection is a b****

​

Dumbasses

 

[shelke]

I don't support both of them. They are extreme views. 5 lives or 1 life; all of them are worth saving. Honestly, I would just walk away. It's too hard. This isn't a football tournament match where 1 life is worthless before 10 or 1000. Anyone who believes a single man's life isn't worth the lives of others despite their numbers is sick.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Tbh it is not the consequence of the act, but the motive of the act itself which determines its' morality.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

Tbh it is not the consequence of the act, but the motive of the act itself which determines its' morality.

Then WWI can be chalked up to:

Hitler: Purify the human race by getting rid of those with DNA that is detrimental to the human race, or so he thinks

 

[Typhon]

We talked about this in a mammology class when discussing whether there were a set of innate morals in humans, and this question along with similar ones were asked across cultures. I forget the specific results and which answers where chosen, but they found that regardless of culture there were certain scenarios where the majority of people answered certain ways which showed there were some basic morals that were essentially coded for in our DNA.

As for the given scenario, its a tough one to answer. If the question was "You can save these five people, or this one person" almost everyone would save the five. But by changing it so that the scenario is "You can save these five people, by killing this one" the answers generally change. The decision to kill an innocent person isn't one many people can make, even if it means saving more lives. Its the act of choosing to kill the person that's so difficult whereas letting five die doesn't require you to do anything.

 

[H a n]

If you can't think of a way to save them all, then.. Do what you gotta do..

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Then WWI can be chalked up to:

Hitler: Purify the human race by getting rid of those with DNA that is detrimental to the human race, or so he thinks

If the motive curtails the dignity and freedom of individuals then the intention itself could not be considered moral, I suggest reading "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill

Remember what Kant said: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

 

[Darthlawsuit]

If the motive curtails the dignity and freedom of individuals then the intention itself could not be considered moral, I suggest reading "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill

Remember what Kant said: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

That is a much better response than your last one and I agree with it. Do not deprive others of their natural rights and people will get along great, well besides the constant bickering but not much can be done about that.

 

[Aim64C]

I tend to apply each philosophy where appropriate.

However, I do tend to side a little more heavily with utilitarian concepts for the simple fact that I believe that one who realizes he/she has the capacity to affect the outcome becomes a functional component of the system, rather than a simple bystander.

If you see someone wandering too close to a downed power line - are you going to choose to warn them, or choose to stay silent? Staying silent is the "non-action" - but it is still a choice since one realized that there was more than one way to address the issue.

So, in the given scenario - I don't see it as "choosing to kill one person" versus "letting people die." I see it as: "choosing to kill five people" or "choosing to kill one person."

Assuming all individuals involved are equal - I would make the decision to switch the tracks and 'save' the five people.

However, I do not subscribe to the belief that all people are of equal practical value. I cannot attribute value to a person's soul - but I can weigh their ability and potential to contribute to the things I do care about (itself a somewhat utilitarian concept) - and if the one person stands exceptional to the estimated average of the five - then the choice will be made to preserve that held to be of higher overall value or potential.

That said - I refuse to take various government benefits, such as unemployment, and will never apply for assistance programs. I would rather die than be a net detriment/inconvenience (perhaps a complex expression of extreme utilitarianism giving the impression of deontology).