|
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tapu
I see the argument for a difference between collateral death and "instrumental death," but I don't know that it has any bearing in a utilitarian morality system.
Now I have only the rudimentary understanding of utilitarianism that most everyone has. I'm sure there's much more to say about it than "more good, more people" = "moral." I have to go look up Mills or whomever to see if the "instrument" type of issue is addressed.
Hey, anyone know that book series "Philosophy and Lost," "Philosophy and House"? I bet there's a "Philosophy and Dexter."
|
There's a fantastic discussion of the problems with utilitarianism in Michael Sandel's book Justice. Chapter 2 is dedicated to the subject of Bentham, Mills and utilitarianism. I'm actually not a utilitarian, in any meaningful sense.
The construction you illuminate above is, to my mind, one of the core weaknesses of a pure utilitarian philosophy (as opposed to utilitarianism modified by something else).
Cheers
Aj
Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.
"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
|