Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Utilitarianism

Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

The statement below
Listening and letting them die. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Ignoring and letting them live. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 0

superpentil
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 203

03 Jan 2015, 8:04 am

In the situation where the world will end but there's a way to stop it, and most people don't believe the world will end except one person who knows it will, actually also knows how to save it and they're the only one that can do it. Now, add in the fact that everyone else in the world thinks they'll be fine and happier if the person doesn't save the world (possibly becuase the process involves something weird/unpleasant), and hence, don't want them to save the world, which is the more utilitarian? Listening to these people and letting them all die (unbeknownst to/ignored by them), or ignoring these people and letting them all live (in the sense that they believe they will regardless becuase the end of the world is hokum to them)?

Assume everyone wants to live (in general).

Edited for clarity.


_________________
"Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 175 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 37 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,941
Location:      

03 Jan 2015, 10:12 am

Huh?

There are so many conditions in your hypothetical situation, and only two answers to choose from, that it seems you want others to come to only one conclusion.

Why don't you just tell us which conclusion it is, and let us get on with the discussion?


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


superpentil
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 203

03 Jan 2015, 11:54 am

That's like a big "screw you" to paradoxes.



Sigbold
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,933
Location: Netherlands

07 Jan 2015, 5:05 am

superpentil wrote:
In the situation where the world will end but there's a way to stop it, and most people don't believe the world will end except one person who knows it will, actually also knows how to save it and they're the only one that can do it. Now, add in the fact that everyone else in the world thinks they'll be fine and happier if the person doesn't save the world (possibly becuase the process involves something weird/unpleasant), and hence, don't want them to save the world, which is the more utilitarian? Listening to these people and letting them all die (unbeknownst to/ignored by them), or ignoring these people and letting them all live (in the sense that they believe they will regardless becuase the end of the world is hokum to them)?

Assume everyone wants to live (in general).

Edited for clarity.


The title of the topic is utilitarianism, so the answer is quit simple from that perspective. Namely save them all, since in that scenario the most humans survive. Also nothing has been written about how the world would be saved, only that it might be weird or unpleasant. And these kind of scenarios it is usually more established what needs to be done, like kill one person to save two. So there is not really a dilemma here.