The Problem With Utilitarianism

Correct. Good catch, Robert!

For a good line, yes. Not for the core of my intellectual argument.

He stole what he passed off as both his knowledge of the topic and his opinion about the topic. That's my complaint about Steve's tactics.

Yet another problem with utilitarianism is that it's a form of consequentialism and therefore suffers from the same flaw that all forms of consequentialism do, namely that it's "not the thought that counts". This is clearly false because intentions matter more than consequences.

Thomas wrote:

He stole what he passed off as both his knowledge of the topic and his opinion about the topic. That's my complaint about Steve's tactics.

He quoted an entry from Wikipedia, if my memory is correct, but failed to attribute the quote, what are you claiming was false in that quoted piece?

Night Ripper wrote:

Yet another problem with utilitarianism is that it's a form of consequentialism and therefore suffers from the same flaw that all forms of consequentialism do, namely that it's "not the thought that counts". This is clearly false because intentions matter more than consequences.

I strongly disagree. I grew up in West Germany during the 1970s and 80s---a society where I met a good number of old Nazis. I also met a good number of East German communists there---real communists, not the scarecrows American conservatives like to set up. Neither of them struck me as evil people. On the test that "it's the thought that counts", then, Nazis and the Commies were misinformed, closed-minded, intellectually uncurious, but not evil.

To me, this shows that "it's the thought that counts" is the wrong test. Both ideologies are evil. And the reason they're evil is their consequences: They killed millions of innocent people without doing any good.

Your memory is incorrect, and it's not my job to correct it.

If you think only consequences matter then you think it's moral to aim at a person's head and shoot at it in the event that the shot misses and hits the hungry mountain lion that was about to pounce on him or her thereby accidentally saving their life.

I think virtue ethics is much more sensible. It allows for good outcomes to come from bad intentions and vice versa and it still reflects our moral intuitions.

Consequences matter but only the expected consequences, not what actually happens.

If I give you a free meal out of the goodness of my heart and that free meal gives you food poisoning and kills you, that wasn't an immoral act

Can you put this into some kind of structured argument, otherwise it reads like opinion.

That's true, and I'm not interested enough to wade through the previous posts. No doubt, if he himself is sufficiently interested, he'll point out that your complaint about unattributed plagiarism was further evasion on your part. Come to think of it, didn't he point that out already?

ughaibu wrote:

Can you put this into some kind of structured argument, otherwise it reads like opinion.

I sure hope it does, because it is an opinion.

Well, that is why we so called refugees are unimpressed with our new home.

I have no duty to impress you. If you don't like it here, feel free to leave.

Yet another problem with utilitarianism is that it's a form of consequentialism and therefore suffers from the same flaw that all forms of consequentialism do, namely that it's "not the thought that counts". This is clearly false because intentions matter more than consequences. If you think only consequences matter then you think it's moral to aim at a person's head and shoot at it in the event that the shot misses and hits the hungry mountain lion that was about to pounce on him or her thereby accidentally saving their life.

You have to evaluate a choice by its expected consequences at the time the choice is made. When you choose to aim at a person's head and pull the trigger, the most likely outcome is that you kill an innocent person. Much less probably, you miss and hit a tree, a lawn, or perhaps somebody's car. Your chances that a failed shot does any good by hitting a target that ought to be hit are negligible. Your act of pulling the trigger has to be evaluated in terms of all possible outcomes, weighed by their probability.

Say Bruce Willis shoots at a child abductor, misses, and kills the child instead. As I understand your suggestion, the judge should just let him walk away because his character was noble, he was virtuous, and he intended to do the right thing.

However, that goes DIRECTLY AGAINST UTILITARIANISM since utilitarianism says that it's the consequences that matter, namely that whatever produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people is the moral act, it doesn't matter what you intended to do or not as far as utilitarianism goes.

Quote:

However, that goes DIRECTLY AGAINST UTILITARIANISM since utilitarianism says that it's the consequences that matter, namely that whatever produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people is the moral act, it doesn't matter what you intended to do or not as far as utilitarianism goes.

So, are you arguing that utilitarianism doesn't consider in it's calculation how future people will act based on success/failure of an act?

Well, that is why we so called refugees are unimpressed with our new home..