(July 21, 2012 at 11:57 am)genkaus Wrote: 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.
Well that would seem to be accepted, I don't presume to know anything of the personal variations of utilitarians' morals, rather that what makes them utilitarian would necessitate this. In this scenario I would say that the choice would be made to benefit the future generations as the pain would supposedly be outweighed by the pleasure produced?
Quote: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.
As mentioned above, if they were utilitarian this would be the main qualifier would it not? If I am not mistaken, pain is the ultimate evil to the utilitarian.
Quote: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.
Not necessarily true, utilitarianism was created as an attempt to minimise suffering in peoples and Bentham writes TPOMAL in response to suffering, not to production of pleasure alone. Furthermore, it is attributed an equal value in the main aim of the act utilitarian theory, with the greatest good being the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. It is not my supposition that these things are antithetical, it is the assertion of utilitarianism itself, as proposed first by Epicurus and later by the modern philosophers (such as Bentham and Mill). No, causing the greatest amount of suffering in the present would be the right choice, whereas in reality their actions would still be those which produce the greatest pleasure, even if not for the current generation.
Quote: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.
I remain unconvinced, perhaps you have something stronger to put forward or further explain your points?
Religion is an attempt to answer the philosophical questions of the unphilosophical man.
