Problem Cases for Consequentialism

[@e45127]

This lecture not only gave insights into consequentialism, but also really made it clear how we struggle with moral issues and why politics can be so difficult.

[@Grizabeebles]

In regards to politics, it also doesn't help that humans use the same part of the brain for processing physical and emotional "threats". Evolving how to map our tribal affiliations and our core values into our sense of "self" was a great trick for a while, but at this point it might be causing more problems than it solves.

[@SvetlanaMinina]

Thanks for this video. I've leaned towards utilitarianism for a long time and this video made me more sure about my preferences. I think it's the better guide in the decision making process,than any other theory. It's not like virtues don't matter,they do, but actual predictable consequences matter more. I feel like moral theories of Kant, Confucius or any religious moral theory have problems,that are much more significant,that the problems described in this video.

[@Blanksmithy123]

This is true, but the trolly problem continues to dissuade me from identifying as a utilitarian. How would you answer the fat man variant of the trolly problem?

[@SvetlanaMinina]

Realistically there's no way to be sure,if the fat man will actually stop the train, that's why I wouldn't push him. If I somehow knew,that he will stop the train for sure, then I probably would, although it would be awfully difficult decision,and I hope,that I will never ever be in a situation like that. Imagine the same trolley situation, but 5 of your innocent children are on the rails,and the fat man is Kim Jong Un. Religious and Kantian ethics say don't push, but I would.

[@Grizabeebles]

@@Blanksmithy123 -- Consequentialism isn't a strategy for playing the game of life - it's simply a method for keeping score. The laws of physics state that we live in a probabilistic universe. God does in fact play dice. Therefore, we can't know with total certainty if any action we take is "moral" or not until after we take it. Just like we can't know the dice in a game of craps will turn up sevens before we throw them.

[@darkengine5931]

​@@Blanksmithy123 I would start by predicting that the most probable consequence of violently pushing an innocent (for all we know in foresight) fat person off a bridge even in an attempt to save lives will result in us being imprisoned or killed to protect future people standing on bridges. Even in a primitive society absent codified laws, the effect of us violently killing innocent people for whatever reason will likely lead to us being outcasted from the society at best or killed at worst to protect that society's future from such violence. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I would actually use this quote to support the case for not pushing the fat man, because far more people would have a more immediate need to be able to stand on bridges without fear of being pushed off than to have lives sacrificed on their account to save them from the rarest of freak accidents. Only the smallest percentage of people suffer from freak accidents; a far greater percentage has a need to cross bridges. The types who think the consequences for the fat man and lever variants of the trolley problem are identical seem to be thinking that we live in a society of robots rather than human beings. To even begin to predict the consequences of our action with remote accuracy, we have to factor in society's responses to our actions. It is highly improbable that any society of human beings will perceive the lever and fat man variants in the same way, and therefore the consequences will very likely be radically different between the two.

[@ChannelMath]

In the first example there was no objection to consequentialism even discussed, unless "it's sometimes hard to tell what the consequences are" is the objection (in which case I'd say yeah, it is, especially in a hypothetical case with almost no details). But "it's sometimes hard to tell what X is" is not evidence or an argument that we should consider Y, or even that Y exists at all In the second example, again I see no actual objections, only different consequentialist arguments based on different possible consequences In the third case, we have an argument against a certain notion of utility (the assumption all utilities are comparable is one such notion), not consequentialism. A consequentiallist would have to know how much good is an hour of entertainment and how much bad is murder to even answer (not to mention the other issues he brings up) the fourth example is kind of a trick: "We" are asked if it's better to carve up the body. So the question becomes not "was it OK that one life was lost without consent for 5 others to live?" but "Is it OK to permit this? Is it OK to say that it's OK?" To which the consequentialist could easily argue "no" based on the obvious future consequences. I.e., it's kind of paradoxical to say that "nobody will ever know about it", while here "we" are, on the outside, knowing about it. now the final example: The difference between this and the trolley problem is that in the trolley problem, "we" are the doctor, basically. In this case we can honestly say "suppose nobody will ever know about it". Like the tourist problem, we can talk about all the other likely consequences, including long-term, that could allow the honest consequentialist to decide either way. But the idea in most of these is to appeal to your common sense, that (maybe only semi-consciously) puts up all kinds of objections to the (supposed) consequentialist conclusion which involves killing someone ("will it haunt me? will I go to jail? will I go to hell?" or even "will I be able to even do it?"). These objections are elided by the problem but we have a hard time ignoring them. And if added these possibilities into the problem, they would be more consequences to consider that went against the (supposed) consequentialist conclusion. It's almost like an appeal to emotion fallacy, but more like appealing to common sense to decide what's good in a very abstract, unlikely, non-common-sense situation. So yeah, I'd shoot the protestor if that was the situation, but there's literally no chance that in real life I would ever believe that it was really the situation.

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

I agree with you. I think most of the puzzles in the literature pose no real problem for consequentialism. I think the hard question is how to deal with risk adequately. But that’s not an objection.

[@h____hchump8941]

This video feels like watching the TV show 24 (which I've been doing a lot lately). Jack Bauer is definitely a consequentialist.

[@h____hchump8941]

I wrote this before he mentioned 24!

[@bigboy2217]

It is frustrating that so many moral systems collapse into each other. It feels like the measuring error is the fundamental flaw of consequentialism, you can never have perfect information, and if you did then morality would be simple. It's a nice goal to aim towards, but it feels like deontological structures like kantian ethics and rules given by a god come down to having some degree of faith in the rules for some other sake, which is very consequentialist. A christian doesn't just follow god's rules, they believe it will give them and everyone around them a better life in the long run. So in a way consequentialists are simply observing an eventual end and saying "who cares if we can't measure it, the ideal is the ideal and at least I know what the ideal looks like before making the rules or building my character" I also think things like the utility monster are good arguments against utilitarianism, it seems as if any type of utilitarianism you come up with falls victim to some strange hypothetical that people can't bite the bullet on. If it's a positive utility, would not the moral thing be to pursue creating a utility monster out of necessity to your ethics? If you are a negative utilitarian, who puts reduction of suffering at the forefront, for example, would that not be an argument to simply end all sentient life as quickly and painlessly as possible?

[@Grizabeebles]

Show me gambler who brags about "having a system" and I'll show you a deontologist. Show me a card-counter and I'll show you a utilitarian. Show me the person who owns the casino and I'll show you a moral relativist.

[@colonelweird]

I've always instinctively rejected consequentialism & these thought experiments show why. In my view, taking an innocent human life is always wrong, regardless of consequences. The thought experiments seem to be playing with that idea, seeing how far it can be pushed before a person surrenders it. Turns out most people are willing to rationalize murder pretty easily. I understand why, but I still can't shake the conviction that it's wrong.

[@Grizabeebles]

Unfortunately, the "bright line" type of morality you and I might wish for may not exist. Every time a business owner hires someone, it's a "trolley problem". The employee who gets hired will potentially spend years of their life working at that job instead of another. Those who don't get hired will have spent their time and resources and got nothing for their efforts. Lives are changed as a result. Consequentialism is simply giving up on the guesswork and letting the result speak for itself.

[@discoj7112]

How do you deal with the innocent lives that are lost as a result of your own actions or preferences? The systems you support or participate in? For example, if you drive a car you're supporting a transportation system that needlessly kills thousands of people a year. Or doing just about anything that causes air pollution, which kills millions of people every year. It seems like we are already making these utilitarian calculations for ourselves, we just maybe don't think about them, don't know about them, or ignore them because they feel more removed or harder to do anything about.

[@colonelweird]

@@discoj7112 Driving a car doesn't involve a decision to kill anyone. There are moral considerations involved in driving (and in the others situations you mention), and in cases like that it's necessary to consider consequences. But any moral act that involves a decision to kill the innocent goes beyond the boundary of where consequences can be used to make the decision.

[@Grizabeebles]

@@colonelweird -- can you please clarify the difference between "a decision to kill an innocent" and "a decision that results in the death of an innocent"? From where I sit, there is none. Concepts like "intent" and "unintended consequences" are (in my mind) a way of avoiding "moral liability" when we "do the right thing" and things work out badly anyway.

[@darkengine5931]

​@@colonelweird Intentions factor in heavily from my consequentialist perspective in determining the appropriate responsive course of action. For example, if I unintentionally harmed someone but was negligent in what I did, I should focus on being more careful in the future. If I intentionally harmed someone, then I should focus on being more benevolent. The responsive courses of corrective action are subject to the same consequentialist evaluations in a cascading fashion. From my perspective, deontologists are actually less likely to consider intentions than consequentialists when it comes to repercussive actions by simply punishing someone for punishment's sake for having broken some rule. The consequentialist factors in everything they can (intent, criminal background, the nuanced circumstances of the situation) to try to determine the maximally productive way to discourage future repeats of such misbehavior.

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

To any culprit, I say, I am coming with the thunder!

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

Is that an objection against consequentialism or is it mockery!

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

Boat jokes?