Topic: Basic Utilitarianism | |
---|---|
What are your views? Do you belive in "Act" or "Rule" utilitarianism?
Do you believe it is ever acceptable for one person to suffer for the greater good of all? For example: Lets say a cure for AIDs was discovered, but an innocent man would have to be repeatly tortured for the rest of his life for the cure. Would it be acceptable in your mind? It would mean curing thousands with AIDs. |
|
|
|
If he eccepted it and would go for it yes, I would say so
|
|
|
|
If it were voluntary, you would have thousands standing in line.
michael |
|
|
|
It is not perhaps as harsh to imagine this as a Christian metaphor, with
Jesus' suffering as the condition of happiness for us. But there is a huge difference. Jesus was a volunteer; an innocent man/woman/child is not in basic utilitarianism. |
|
|
|
I think they have some laws to prevent that from happening. So they use
animals instead. The answer would be yes if they wanted to do it. |
|
|
|
It is a deep topic...I do realize.
Ethics have always interested me. |
|
|
|
But the example is NO, he did not want to do it.
|
|
|
|
Another example:
Many movies have been made from this very idea. Lets say a very small percentage of the population was very ill and also extremely contagious. Should they be sacrificed for the greater good of the population? Or does our ethics tell us to try to save the contagious people with it spreading to the rest of the world? |
|
|
|
If the person was a volunteer yes.
Now to throw in a thought to add to the question? What if the person who had to suffer the torture, was someone who is in prison for life, for bringing suffering to others? Then should the person be a volunteer, or should this be a part of the persons sentence to satisfy the needs of those who lossed loved ones to the suffering he/she created? |
|
|
|
Good point snuggles!
It is easy to say it is ok, when the person volunteered. But really makes you think if the person did not. Whats right? Whats wrong? |
|
|
|
no I think I would not support it, one reason because he was not put
here to suffer for the rest of us and with something like aids, no offense, but we have decisions and we all know how aids is mostly spreadm right??? |
|
|
|
Very true Mach, most cases are preventable these days.
How about the other example? A small part of the population is extremely ill & very contagious....do we try to save them and risk wiping out the population? Or do we sacrafice the minority for the greater good? |
|
|
|
A small part of the population is extremely ill & very contagious....do
we try to save them and risk wiping out the population? Or do we sacrafice the minority for the greater good? For me if my family members,were part of that small population I would join them, and take the risk of being wiped out, because without my family I would be lost. |
|
|
|
we send them to outer space and repopulate the earth. then we did the
right thing because we sacrificed them in a way we did not kill them, but we let them live out there days without spreading the infection. lol j/k harder question Katie, I can't decide really on this one???? I think my true answer would be to think of another option?? |
|
|
|
If it was not volunteered of couse not, I don't care, what a man has
done, if in prison, he is paying for his crimes, judged by his piers, sentenced by his piers, I could not condone that |
|
|
|
It is a hard question to ask.
Yes, if my family / friends were ill...I would do everything in my power to save them at risk of me dying. Id want to be right there with them too. What if it was random people you did not know? Im leaning towards mach's answer... People who want to sacrifice their lives...doctors/ volunteers /etc let them join them to help and send them to space with plenty of supplies (which for me would be BEER) |
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for your input
|
|
|
|
Anyone else care to add their thoughts? Id love to know what u think
|
|
|