- Ethics: The Problem of Evil
- Ethics: Problem of Evil, Part 1
- Ethics: Problem of Evil, Part 2
- Ethics: Problem of Evil, Part 3
- Ethics: God and Morality, Part 1
- Ethics: God and Morality, Part 2
- Ethics: Moral Status
- Ethics: Killing Animals for Food
- Ethics: Hedonism and The Experience Machine
- Ethics: Consequentialism
- Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 1
- Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 2
- Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 3
- Ethics: The Problem of Moral Luck
- Ethics: The Nonidentity Problem
- Ethics: The Nonidentity Problem, Part 2
- Ethics: Symmetry Argument Against the Badness of Death
- Ethics: Promising Against the Evidence #1
- Ethics: Promising Against the Evidence #2
- Ethics: Know Thyself #1 (The Examined Life)
- Ethics: Consent #1 (What is Consent?)
- Ethics: Consent #2 (Consent and Rights)
Speaker: Dr. Julia Markovits, Associate Professor, Sage School of Philosophy, Cornell Universtiy.
Want to join the conversation?
- If the people watching the World Cup found out about Jones (which would be inevitable), they would be mad at the TV company or whoever for NOT shutting off the transmitter, so doesn't utilitarianism actually support helping Jones?(7 votes)
- Yes, it does support helping Jones because it would maximize the well being of Jones to save him immediately and also of the fans when they realized what had happened during the outage.(5 votes)
- Does the Theory of Right Action say that it is better to do something that is expected to give happiness when the outcome is uncertain ?(4 votes)
- To solve this problem, couldn't you just change your value from happiness to something that will weight a person's life more heavily?(2 votes)
- Perhaps minor inconvenaces are not worth the same as actual suffering because the long term consequences for J will be more severe than it would be for those people. They may be mad for a week or so but J could be tramatized for the rest of his life.(2 votes)
- Turning of the World Cup game wouldn't hurt anyone else though. It would annoy them, sure, but they would not suffer physical pain like Jones.(2 votes)
- 2:25Or... Perhaps it is just happiness that has value. I've considered this endlessly, especially after reading Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. If we can all be happy, and eternally high on drugs, why shouldn't we be? Of course, there's the argument that doing so would eventually lead to unhappiness, but then that is still utilitarian as it is a minimization of unhappiness? But if we could really be maximally deluded, high and happy forever, putting aside the practicality of any such event, why would it be immoral to do so?4:45I believe this is not necessarily true, as happiness in this sense is not necessarily quantifiable. While quantities of deaths can sometimes easily be compared to other quantities of deaths (though only sometimes), comparing the value of happiness derived from the outcome to other "events" of different nature and therefore different "quality" introduces a factor which determines the value of the outcome of the event without any algebraic logic, such as the value of life and liberties. While that is not to say that the rights to life and liberty are necessarily sacred (1. e.g murder to prevent massacre, imprisonment 2. defining "sacred" as unjust to damage regardless of literally any circumstances), I do believe that they are of virtually infinitely greater value as compared to any quantity of headaches.
To anyone who reads this, what do you think?(2 votes)
- I do disagree with the attempt to allocate happiness a value because in many different circumstances there is no telling whether the outcome provides more happiness or less happiness than another, without even considering emotional attachments. Utilitarianism, however, if applied to the first concept which you proposed, can also be interpreted to oppose this "eternally high life" because drugs would still impact on mental health, hence is it true happiness or a false pretence of happiness, much like the idea in a former video which stated that you enjoy your friends company, even though they don't really like you. It instigates a somewhat false sense of happiness, which should be discussed in the utilitarian principle.
What is everyone else's opinion?
Nikhil Roy(1 vote)