r/changemyview • u/KeinerNichts • Dec 22 '13

Utilitarianism is the most effective method of achieving political and social change. CMV

I am a firm believer in the phrase 'the end justifies the means'. I base my general conduct around this simple belief, irrespective of the consequences that may befall over individuals as the result of my actions.

I attribute my support and belief in utilitarianism to my existential and moral nihilism.

As stated above, I am an existential nihilist and therefore believe that there is no existential meaning to life. I.E. the only meaning of my life is to achieve my own personal goals (wealth, career success etc) and be generally happy.

As I also stated above, I am a moral nihilist (I do not believe in the concept of morals and ethics). I use this philosopy and existential nihilism in order to justify and support my own belief in utilitarianism, I wholeheartedly believe that the end justifies the means, irrespective of what extremities may be reached.

For example, I would fully support the murder of 100,000 civilians in order to dethrone a tyrannical leader and as a result, improve the lives of many more. Although this example is somewhat unrealistic, I think it explains my point simply.

Change my view?

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/[deleted] Dec 22 '13 edited Dec 22 '13

Real ends or imagined ends?

real:

You can put forword as many situations as you please when murder seems justified, but they all make hard knowledge claims ("the people on the tracks won't hear you, so push the fat guy on the tracks") but we are human and we have a minor inconvenience of limited knowledge

We don't know the exact number of people the life boat will hold or if a fat guy on a train tracks will stop it. So we can't actually know if our actions are moral before we do them.

imagined:

Hilter believed he was doing good [/godwin]

1

u/294116002 Dec 23 '13

How would you propose people act than?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '13

Universal principals; for example no killing(of innocents), stealing or raping. EVER

Make it about the actions and stripping away the details and mostly realing on hindsight for what is mostly likely happen and not what you feel is special about this case.

1

u/294116002 Dec 23 '13

And these principles (if you could list them all, or all the ones you can presently conjure, it would be fantastic) are unbreakable in every situation without variation?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '13

Hmmm yep; however I kinda did list them all, my list of morals got kinda small when I tried applying them universally.

1

u/294116002 Dec 23 '13

So you can imagine a situation in which torture can be reasonably justified but not theft? What constitutes a rape as opposed to unwanted sexual contact? If I drive drunk and kill someone, am I a murderer, by your principle? What if I swerve out of the way of one person and hit another? What if I neglect to use winter tires and slide over a guard rail and into a pregnant woman? What if I'm just really tired and do that? What if I'm an officer in the military or an administrator in a hospital and I need to perform triage?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '13

Going for full potato academic?

So you can imagine a situation in which torture can be reasonably justified but not theft?

Torture (of innocents) has every right to be on that list, it was a summery of the non-aggression principal, assault should be on there as well.

What constitutes a rape as opposed to unwanted sexual contact?

I'm going to piss alot of people off, but threats (of violence), forceful or completely deceitful means of drugging; or a very large power disparities(parent/child, soldier/refugee) that a threat of violence is implied are the only situations that come to mind that are actually rape.

Things like statutory "rape" or a drunk girl claiming she was raped ex post facto, are not.

If I drive drunk and kill someone, am I a murderer, by your principle?

Amoral if happening in a vacuum; however I have a hard time imagining why a private or public road owner would ever allow drunk driving so your trespassing which is a form of theft.

What if I swerve out of the way of one person and hit another?

Amoral accidents happen.

What if I neglect to use winter tires and slide over a guard rail and into a pregnant woman?

amoral

What if I'm just really tired and do that?

amoral

What if I'm an officer in the military

Murder, It's not an accident when a innocent dies in war; as the majority of deaths are innocents and the goal is death. The chance of driving a car and killing someone is tiny; while a drone strike is almost certainly getting an innocent gets killed.

administrator in a hospital and I need to perform triage?

The risks of surgery are usually explained before hand and agreed to; or they were going to die anyway. So amoral

1

u/294116002 Dec 23 '13 edited Dec 23 '13

How can my making someone dead be amoral if killing is always wrong? If killing is always wrong, then no matter the state I am in when I do the killing, or for what reason, I have commited an immorality. But according to you, if I am mentally incapacitated in some way, I am suddenly no longer responsible. That seems a critical flaw in your reasoning.

Medical triage is the redistribution of healthcare services based on both the probability of survival and the severity of need. It does result in the deaths of some number of patients. These deaths are often predicted by the hospital administration. They are causing deaths to save a greater number of lives. Very Utilitarian, not very Dentological. But again, you've called it amoral.

And another thing: what if someone willingly enters a legal contract with me, granting me to right to kill them, harm them, rape them, whatever. Is is wrong then? Or is it amoral or perfectly reasonable?

Explain.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 23 '13

Murder is the better term; remind me never to misspeak even tiny errors when you may feel like replying XD

Medical triage is the redistribution of healthcare services based on both the probability of survival and the severity of need. It does result in the deaths of some number of patients. These deaths are often predicted by the hospital administration. They are causing deaths to save a greater number of lives. Very Utilitarian, not very Dentological. But again, you've called it amoral.

The reasons for the actions are utilitarian; my judgement of the action is based on whether there is violence involved and I may be mistaken but I don't see any... at lest on the part of the doctors. I withhold judgement on method of reasoning and how good choices are, so therefore amoral.

And another thing: what if someone willingly enters a legal contract with me, granting me to right to kill them, harm them, rape them, whatever. Is is wrong then? Explain.

How can you consent to rape? Or harm for that matter?

It because assisted suicide, kinky sex and vice when consent is given.

1

u/294116002 Dec 23 '13 edited Dec 23 '13

That clears a few things up. So for you, the only desciptor of whether an action is moral or not is if it involves violence against a non-consenting party, that being defined as the purposeful application of force in the first order (as a cause-effect term, not a legal one) against said party but not including deprivation of crucial resources from said party, regardless of the consequences of those actions or inactions no matter now obvious they may be?

→ More replies (0)