This is a serious question: does really one million dollar create same amount of happiness for one person as much as for a million people?! "Would you kill one person to save five" ?!
If anything, the tribe example shows the merits of utilitarianism, not a problem with it. Under a utilitarian view, you ought to kill the one to save the many. However, it also makes sense of why this is such a difficult decision. Even though you're preventing a lot of evil, you're still causing a lot of evil, albeit less. It's a difficult situation, and assuming the only options are killing the one or letting them all die, it seems clear that you should kill the one. If you let them all die, you have all of their blood on your hands, even if you didn't pull the trigger, because you had the opportunity to save them. If a person is drowning, and you can easily save that person, you're responsible if you let that person die, even though it was the drowning that killed the person, not you.
I cringed at that claim that Martin Luther King could be seen as immoral under a moral relativist framework. As if barely understanding the term or deciding to stack on a dozen assumptions to jump through the hoops to make this make sense.
![3. Approaches to Environmental Ethics [Environmental Ethics]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cWfqPcWY2Zs/mqdefault.jpg)
![3. Approaches to Environmental Ethics [Environmental Ethics]](/img/tr.png)
![Jonathan Wells: Science and Theistic Evolution [God & Evolution]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hksGZcqJ5h4/mqdefault.jpg)
Pushing an agenda a little don't you think.
This is a serious question: does really one million dollar create same amount of happiness for one person as much as for a million people?!
"Would you kill one person to save five" ?!
His endorsement of cognitivism was a little too brief (i.e. unconvincing).
If anything, the tribe example shows the merits of utilitarianism, not a problem with it. Under a utilitarian view, you ought to kill the one to save the many. However, it also makes sense of why this is such a difficult decision. Even though you're preventing a lot of evil, you're still causing a lot of evil, albeit less. It's a difficult situation, and assuming the only options are killing the one or letting them all die, it seems clear that you should kill the one. If you let them all die, you have all of their blood on your hands, even if you didn't pull the trigger, because you had the opportunity to save them. If a person is drowning, and you can easily save that person, you're responsible if you let that person die, even though it was the drowning that killed the person, not you.
Finn No not necessarily. You can't justify under utilitarianism to kill one to save the many. Utilitarianism is not a democracy
I cringed at that claim that Martin Luther King could be seen as immoral under a moral relativist framework.
As if barely understanding the term or deciding to stack on a dozen assumptions to jump through the hoops to make this make sense.