(July 21, 2012 at 10:21 am)liam Wrote: Hmm, I understand that it depends on what you take to be meant by absolutes but if we even accept the 'wrong in every situation ever', doesn't the utilitarian still argue that the action which creates the greatest suffering should never be performed? this seems to constitute an absolute judgement, even if it is not reflective of an absolutist theory. Perhaps in my presentation of it here i was a little ambiguous, all the theories rely on an absolute and can so be considered, at least in some sense, absolute.
We'd have to ask a utilitarian this, but what do you think one would say in this situation - Cause the greatest amount of suffering possible for one generation so that every generation after that can live without any suffering whatsoever.
Another thing to consider would be the foresight of whether an action would cause the greatest suffering has a role to play in judging the action. I guess different utilitarians would have different views on that.
Another thing you are forgetting is that the utilitarian dictum is "maximize happiness", not "minimize suffering" - an important distinction, though it may not seem like it. Consider the very common concept that suffering maximizes happiness (regularly appearing in religions all over the world) - that the level of a person's happiness in future depends on how much he suffers now. Your conclusion that "a utilitarian would always condemn causing greatest amount of suffering" relies on suffering and pleasure being antithetical. In the given scenario, causing the greatest amount of suffering would be the right thing to do - according to the utilitarian.
So, while it may often seem like an absolutist statements, most of the moral theories are found to be most decidedly not so upon deeper consideration.
