Poll

What would you do?

Leave the trapped individual alone and let the five people die.
6 (40%)
Run over the trapped individual and save the five people.
9 (60%)

Total Members Voted: 15

« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?

  • 25 Replies
  • 10725 Views
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« on: March 23, 2009, 08:09:40 PM »
[Note: please assume ceteris paribus ("all things being equal")]

Imagine a situation where there are five people dying from dehydration on an island and you are devoted to save them. You must drive along a very narrow road to reach the island. However, there is one individual trapped in the middle of the road. If you don't do anything to him, he will be fine eventually as he figures a way to get himself out. The five people will die as soon as you leave him alone or save him. Will you run over this individual (thereby killing him) to save the five people, or will you let these five people die instead?

Kantian's view:

Every human being has intrinsic worth because he is a rational agent; therefore, all humans beings have a right to life. In fact, rational agents have freedom of choice, so they are free to choose how their life should end. According to the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, we should never treat a human being as a mean to achieve goals. Thus, we should leave the trapped individual alone without violating his personal rights.

Utilitarian's view:

Any action that maximizes the utility or happiness of all the individuals concerned is a morally correct action; in other words, this morally correct action achieves the greatest utility for the greatest number. The more people are happy and the more happier they are, the better. Therefore, we should save the five people, as it is better to save five than to save one. Five people, instead of one, will be happy. It is always better to save more.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 11:39:32 AM by Jack »
Logged
*

optimisticcynic

  • 2200
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2009, 08:19:32 PM »
I Heard a similar one to this. you are working on a tunnel. your are on an overhang over the tunnel.  a train is out of control and about to head down that tunnel. in the tunnel are 5 people. now you are standing next to bill. bill is a big man. now if you push him off the overhang in front of of the train, as soon as the train hits the emergency brake will activate and will stop it before it hits the people in the tunnel. you however are too small to activate the emergency brake and you don't have anything else big enough. could you push bill?

I believe you should always try to save the maximum number of people. Even if you choose to do nothing then you still made a choice. you still choose to let them die as surly as if pulled a trigger.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 09:00:05 PM by optimisticcynic »
Logged
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.
*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2009, 09:08:44 PM »
you also have to take into account the action as "playing god."
some would take no action, regardless of the situation because the lives of the people are not in thier hands.

personally, ill save the most poeple.

than agian, you need to take relationships into account.
how many people would have to be saved for you to sacrafice your favorite pet? a loved one? yourself?

it might have to take 20 other people saved before i let my 4 immediate family members die, if that.
Logged
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2009, 01:29:38 AM »
The maxim that "the more you save, the better" is compelling, but you have to consider human rights too. Let's test to see if this maxim can be universalized using #1 formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Is everyone on the planet willing to ignore human rights and freedom of choice merely by sacrificing the few and saving the more? Indeed, if everyone does follow this maxim, there will be no human rights and freedom in society in the end. However, it is plausible that not everyone follows this maxim (as there are people who treasures freedom and personal rights). Since not everyone follows this maxim, this maxim fails the #1 formulation of the Categorical Imperative: this maxim is immoral and therefore we should choose to leave the trapped individual alone without violating his personal rights. Moreover, according to Kant, any act that treats someone as a mean to an end is irrational, and morality exists so long as rationality exists. Such act will be irrational, and thus immoral.

Furthermore, "more" does not constitute morally correct, as you have to look deeper into the situation. Imagine this: what if the five people are criminals? Surely, according to the utilitarian point of view, we should still save the five people because we should save more and because more people will be happy (obviously, the criminals will be impressed by your heroic act). However, we see that we are not doing the right thing.  Let's take another example: assume that a professor gives As to all the students in his class. The students will be happy, but is such an act morally correct? Not really, as the students will eventually fail as they take higher courses (they got nothing out of the class), people from other classes will eventually complain about it, and the education department demands the professor be fired for negligence. Utilitarianism is highly compelling at first, but it gets all contradictory as you get deeper into it.

This is also the reason why utilitarianism is controversial in ethics. It is not totally incorrect, but controversial.
Logged
*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2009, 05:03:41 AM »
Quote
Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?

No, I am not. I'm a human being, I don't deal in absolutes.
Logged
Quote from: Wendy on December 31, 1969, 04:00:00 PM
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2009, 07:21:17 AM »
The first one is nonsensical. I'd stop the car, help the guy out, get him to climb over the car out the way then carry ou to save the five islanders. They're dying of dehydration, they can wait another ten minutes.

Chances are good that if you ran over the trapped guy, you'd send yourself over the edge too, thereby killing everyone.

I'm a realist.

Logged
*

Soze

  • 1291
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2009, 07:44:52 AM »
The point of the exercise is to learn something about yourself from an impossible situation. It's not to outmaneuver the obvious mechanisms in place for the scenario. There will always be loop holes and alternatives for scenarios in real life, but when confronting your choices in moments of absolutism, it reveals a fundamental part of who you are. On the surface, I like to think of myself as always rational and logical. But my probable inability to willfully kill someone else when it serves the greater good would be primal and emotional. I have a feeling a lot less people could actually crunch an innocent civilian beneath their tires when it actually comes down to it, than they may think. I may be able to, but it would take a lot of willpower even if it was "justified". I can't really ever know.

I'm surprised I didn't see anyone mention quality of life. Age, handicaps, debilitating diseases, etc. all should be quantified. A two year old has more potential for life than a 90 year old for instance, and thus he should be favored. On that note, quality of death would be important too. Someone tortured for days vs. someone injected with morphine. See the difference?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 07:49:40 AM by Soze »
Logged
*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2009, 07:50:20 AM »
Quote from: Jack on March 24, 2009, 01:29:38 AM
The maxim that "the more you save, the better" is compelling, but you have to consider human rights too. Let's test to see if this maxim can be universalized using #1 formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Is everyone on the planet willing to ignore human rights and freedom of choice merely by sacrificing the few and saving the more? Indeed, if everyone does follow this maxim, there will be no human rights and freedom in society in the end. However, it is plausible that not everyone follows this maxim (as there are people who treasures freedom and personal rights). Since not everyone follows this maxim, this maxim fails the #1 formulation of the Categorical Imperative: this maxim is immoral and therefore we should choose to leave the trapped individual alone without violating his personal rights. Moreover, according to Kant, any act that treats someone as a mean to an end is irrational, and morality exists so long as rationality exists. Such act will be irrational, and thus immoral.

Rights are complete bullshit.  They have no more basis than it is "self-evident".

Quote
Furthermore, "more" does not constitute morally correct, as you have to look deeper into the situation. Imagine this: what if the five people are criminals? Surely, according to the utilitarian point of view, we should still save the five people because we should save more and because more people will be happy (obviously, the criminals will be impressed by your heroic act). However, we see that we are not doing the right thing.  Let's take another example: assume that a professor gives As to all the students in his class. The students will be happy, but is such an act morally correct? Not really, as the students will eventually fail as they take higher courses (they got nothing out of the class), people from other classes will eventually complain about it, and the education department demands the professor be fired for negligence. Utilitarianism is highly compelling at first, but it gets all contradictory as you get deeper into it.

This is also the reason why utilitarianism is controversial in ethics. It is not totally incorrect, but controversial.

The flaw with utilitarianism is that no person can calculate what action will best maximize good.  Human affairs are just too complicated.  The principle is great, but in practice, it fails.
Logged
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)
*

Soze

  • 1291
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2009, 08:13:42 AM »
Well I know its impossible to calculate the good of every possible action, but that doesn't mean there isn't probable good involved. I think you can use it in practice when there appears to be a considerable gap. Sure, the guy on the bridge might have known the cure for cancer, but with the information available, 5 normal people outweigh 1 normal person.
The more extreme the example, the more comfortable the conclusion. For instance, the entire planet's population vs. 1 person would be an easier choice right?

There is always doubt. For instance, that one person, might be able to save the universe from imploding or some shit.  :)
Logged
?

Edtharan

  • 687
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2009, 08:36:50 AM »
Quote from: Soze on March 24, 2009, 07:44:52 AM
The point of the exercise is to learn something about yourself from an impossible situation. It's not to outmaneuver the obvious mechanisms in place for the scenario. There will always be loop holes and alternatives for scenarios in real life, but when confronting your choices in moments of absolutism, it reveals a fundamental part of who you are.
Then what these people are, are people who will do everything in their power to avoid absolutism.  ;)

This is a big problem I have with many psychology and philosophy tests/scenarios. They try to put you in situations that are unrealistic.

There is a saying: If you abandon reality, then anything is possible.

So, by positing impossible scenarios, you are not actually examining anything about the person, but only how they respond to an impossible scenario.

What I find interesting is that most people's reaction to such questions is to rebel. What this means is that people are smart enough to know that such a situation is impossible (or extremely unlikely) and that if that situation were real, they would have no time to think coherently about it.

There are so many more variable that would be in play in a real situation that these simplified situations just don't actually reveal anything about what a person would really do in that situation.
Logged
Everyday household experimentation.
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2009, 08:50:13 AM »
Quote
The point of the exercise is to learn something about yourself from an impossible situation. It's not to outmaneuver the obvious mechanisms in place for the scenario

Then give me an impossible scenario. I can't say which direction I'll go down if I am presented with multiple ways of solving the dilemma

Why don't we break it down into a much easier problem. five men are wired to a bomb in one room, one man is wired to another in a separate room. The bomb mechanism  is such that if one presses the green button in a control room, the one man dies but the others live. If the button is not pressed the five people are blown up. In that case I would press the Green button.
Logged
*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49757
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2009, 11:34:23 AM »
I don't think I could run over and kill one person to save five others.  Of course I might be able to if the one person was a stranger and the five were friends or family, or if the one in the road was a known pedophile or something.   I'd have to be able to justify it someway. 
Logged
Quote from: Thork on November 27, 2012, 12:25:43 PM
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2009, 12:27:47 PM »
No offense to Jack, but I think what you posted was a little awkwardly worded.  I'm assuming that what it basically means is that you can either continue on the road and hit the five people, or swerve and hit the one person, stopping the car?  I'm going to go with the Kantian philosophy.  I find it wrong to drag someone who isn't involved in any way into a situation like this.

Now, if it was phrased so that I could choose one of two roads, one with five people and one with one person, then I would choose the one person road.  While difficult though it might be, it's just choosing the lesser of the two evils.  But with this, your goal is the stranded individual's death so they can stop the car with their body.

You are trying to kill an innocent man to achieve your own ends.

Even if the purpose is noble, I personally believe that using someone like this is just wrong.
Logged
*

optimisticcynic

  • 2200
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2009, 01:00:44 PM »
But not doing anything is a choice too. you can't get around it. Take the high rode if you really want to. Still though your choices more people died then needed to.
Logged
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2009, 01:21:12 PM »
Maybe they did.  However, is saving as many lives as possible really our greatest standard of morality?  Suppose that instead of being trapped in the road, there is an onlooker standing by next to you watching a runaway car skid towards a group of five people trapped in the road.  Would it be right to push the bystander in front of the car to stop it?

Or, to borrow a scenario from The God Delusion, what if there were three patients in an emergency room who will all need a different organ transplant, but the only source of organs is an unrelated man who happens to be sitting in the waiting room?  With a strictly utilitarian philosophy, the moral thing to do is to kill the healthy man for his organs, thereby saving the lives of the other three.
Logged
*

optimisticcynic

  • 2200
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2009, 01:34:49 PM »
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on March 24, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Maybe they did.  However, is saving as many lives as possible really our greatest standard of morality?  Suppose that instead of being trapped in the road, there is an onlooker standing by next to you watching a runaway car skid towards a group of five people trapped in the road.  Would it be right to push the bystander in front of the car to stop it?

Or, to borrow a scenario from The God Delusion, what if there were three patients in an emergency room who will all need a different organ transplant, but the only source of organs is an unrelated man who happens to be sitting in the waiting room?  With a strictly utilitarian philosophy, the moral thing to do is to kill the healthy man for his organs, thereby saving the lives of the other three.
Didn't I do the first one already at the beginning of this thread. Second what is wrong with pushing the person, How about if a train is going down a tunnel, and is headed towards 5 people, you can push the button and it switches tracks then it will go down another one and only hit one person, do you push the button, and how is that different then the first question sacrifice one to save five.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 03:54:08 PM by optimisticcynic »
Logged
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2009, 02:10:01 PM »
Quote from: optimisticcynic on March 24, 2009, 01:34:49 PM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on March 24, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Maybe they did.  However, is saving as many lives as possible really our greatest standard of morality?  Suppose that instead of being trapped in the road, there is an onlooker standing by next to you watching a runaway car skid towards a group of five people trapped in the road.  Would it be right to push the bystander in front of the car to stop it?

Or, to borrow a scenario from The God Delusion, what if there were three patients in an emergency room who will all need a different organ transplant, but the only source of organs is an unrelated man who happens to be sitting in the waiting room?  With a strictly utilitarian philosophy, the moral thing to do is to kill the healthy man for his organs, thereby saving the lives of the other three.
Didn't I do the first one already at the begging of this thread. Second what is wrong with pushing the person, How about if a train is going down a tunnel, and is headed towards 5 people, you can push the button and it switches tracks then it will go down another one and only hit one person, do you push the button, and how is that different then the first question sacrifice one to save five.

That's different, because you aren't "using" the person.  The track is being used, they just happen to have the bad luck to be standing on it.
Logged
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2009, 03:02:24 PM »
Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on March 24, 2009, 07:21:17 AM
The first one is nonsensical. I'd stop the car, help the guy out, get him to climb over the car out the way then carry ou to save the five islanders. They're dying of dehydration, they can wait another ten minutes.

Chances are good that if you ran over the trapped guy, you'd send yourself over the edge too, thereby killing everyone.

I'm a realist.
Alright. I know it is reasonable to believe that there are possibilities, but let's assume this is a closed system. Assume that ceteris paribus (all things being equal and constant), and that the five people dies as soon as you let the guy go (they will die in any second). Assume that you will not fall over. What would you do?

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on March 24, 2009, 12:27:47 PM
No offense to Jack, but I think what you posted was a little awkwardly worded.  I'm assuming that what it basically means is that you can either continue on the road and hit the five people, or swerve and hit the one person, stopping the car? 
Yeah, it's awkward because I forgot to use ceteris paribus, since it's fun to twist the situation whatever possible anyway. The situation is that there is an island and there is only one road to reach the island: you either run over the individual to save the five or you don't. It's that simple. This example is actually borrowed from philosopher Philippa Foot: I changed the example a bit by removing the ocean tide and adding dehydration instead.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 05:12:24 PM by Jack »
Logged
*

optimisticcynic

  • 2200
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2009, 04:19:43 PM »
Quote from: optimisticcynic on March 23, 2009, 08:19:32 PM
I Heard a similar one to this. you are working on a tunnel. your are on an overhang over the tunnel.  a train is out of control and about to head down that tunnel. in the tunnel are 5 people. now you are standing next to bill. bill is a big man. now if you push him off the overhang in front of of the train, as soon as the train hits the emergency brake will activate and will stop it before it hits the people in the tunnel. you however are too small to activate the emergency brake and you don't have anything else big enough. could you push bill?

I believe you should always try to save the maximum number of people. Even if you choose to do nothing then you still made a choice. you still choose to let them die as surly as if pulled a trigger.
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on March 24, 2009, 02:10:01 PM
Quote from: optimisticcynic on March 24, 2009, 01:34:49 PM
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on March 24, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Maybe they did.  However, is saving as many lives as possible really our greatest standard of morality?  Suppose that instead of being trapped in the road, there is an onlooker standing by next to you watching a runaway car skid towards a group of five people trapped in the road.  Would it be right to push the bystander in front of the car to stop it?

Or, to borrow a scenario from The God Delusion, what if there were three patients in an emergency room who will all need a different organ transplant, but the only source of organs is an unrelated man who happens to be sitting in the waiting room?  With a strictly utilitarian philosophy, the moral thing to do is to kill the healthy man for his organs, thereby saving the lives of the other three.
Didn't I do the first one already at the begging of this thread. Second what is wrong with pushing the person, How about if a train is going down a tunnel, and is headed towards 5 people, you can push the button and it switches tracks then it will go down another one and only hit one person, do you push the button, and how is that different then the first question sacrifice one to save five.

That's different, because you aren't "using" the person.  The track is being used, they just happen to have the bad luck to be standing on it.
Both of them tho you are sacrificing someone, with the button you are just distancing your self from the action. Scientist show you don't even use the same part of your brain when you consider the situation. But in reality you are still sacrificing someone to save others. you are just distancing yourself from the situation. I am not saying I would push the person. I am not strong enough. But I think it is the right thing to do.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 10:25:50 AM by optimisticcynic »
Logged
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.
*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #19 on: March 25, 2009, 05:32:25 AM »
Fuck both Kant and Mill. All you need is commitment.
Logged
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Quote from: Parsifal on July 26, 2010, 04:39:24 PM
Get the fuck over it.
?

Moonlit

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6061
  • The Rebound
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2009, 11:32:34 AM »
At first I chose to run over the individual and save the 5 people but after thinking about it I don't think I could do that.  I would most likely save the individual and try my best to get to the other 5 people before they died.  I would feel regret if they died but in the end I would feel worse if I had knowingly killed someone who was seemingly innocent.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on October 02, 2010, 01:44:40 PM
You think that a photograph is indisputable evidence?  Would you like me to show you a photograph of Barack Obama having sex with a gorilla?
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2009, 01:28:01 PM »
Quote from: optimisticcynic on March 24, 2009, 04:19:43 PM
Both of them tho you are sacrificing someone, with the button you are just distancing your self from the action. Scientist show you don't even use the same part of your brain when you consider the situation. But in reality you are still sacrificing someone to save others. you are just distancing yourself from the situation. I am not saying I would push the person. I am not strong enough. But I think it is the right thing to do.

Exactly.  That is the spirit of utilitarianism, that the means justify the ends.  The results are the same in both cases, yes, one person dies and five others live.  However, Kant believed, and I agree with him, that the steps you take to achieve your goal, if even a worthy one, make a world of difference.  Remember the scenario I posted above, about the hospital room?  Using purely utilitarian logic, killing the man in the waiting room for his organs is the moral thing to do.
Logged
?

Daz555

  • 166
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2009, 06:50:01 AM »
I would not be able to murder one innocent person in order to save five. At least that is what I think sitting here at my desk.

However, none of us have a clue how we would respond if this scenario was real.
Logged
*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2009, 01:41:31 AM »
Kobayashi Maru.

I change the scenario where I can save both the one and the 5 others, and then receive a medal of commendation for original thinking.
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2009, 11:05:06 AM »
I'd kill them all because it's not fair to choose.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49757
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Are you a Kantian or an utilitarian?
« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2009, 04:32:19 PM »
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on March 27, 2009, 01:41:31 AM
Kobayashi Maru.

I change the scenario where I can save both the one and the 5 others, and then receive a medal of commendation for original thinking.

Captain Kirk?
Logged
Quote from: Thork on November 27, 2012, 12:25:43 PM
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »