Definitely using the weighted lottery for deciding where to eat in the future haha. It seems like every ethical framework breaks down at the extremes or in particular situations 😕
The weighted lottery solution is another approach to utilitarianism from the perspective of equal opportunity. It doesn't solve the problem of utilitarianism. Rather, it redefines utilitarianism in a friendly tone.
Utilitarianism isn't about fair representation though. It's fundamentally about pleasure and pain. If you draw the blue ball and rescue 1 person your still not maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
Not necessarily. The people on the island aren't the only ones affected by the scenario. We can assume there are friends and family whose pain of loss, or pain of survivor's guilt, can be lessened by the application of a more fair/just application of utilitarianism. Society as a whole may feel more safe (pleasure) knowing that if they are in the same situation, and they were the lone individual, they would have a greater chance of being rescued than if the weighted lottery were not applied.
Pleasure is one take utilitarianists have had: others want to maximize: welfare, happiness, preferences, and finally rule utilitarianists (rules that maximize some previously mentioned utility),
@@orendafni Po-tay-to / po-tah-to. Call it what you will (pleasure, welfare, happiness, wellbeing), aren't they all still a desired state of being as opposed to an undesired state (or pleasure and pain, for short)? They comma at the end suggests you did not finish your sentence. I'm interested in the rest of your thought.
No! This is absolutely from the perspective of the rescuers and not the victims. If I had the abilility to save five people at the cost of my own life, I would absolutely do it. Give human beings some credit for altruism. If five people were sacrificed for me, even though I had no say in it, I would hate the idea even if such an idea was acted on and accepted without my consent. To die to save others is right and a crowning achievement on a life well spent or otherwise. To be saved at the expense of other lives is unthinkable endless guilt and blame. Please, please never save me if others can be saved.
You are young, educated, and could potentially cure a disease or something equally as beneficial. The people on the other island are old folks from the nursing home whose cruise boat capsized. Does that give you pause to change your answer?
I think the status of the only person on the island in this matter alone is a consideration I believe that putting the only person on the island on this issue and considering the option alone is a consideration of the right of the minority.
Great conversation as always! But I wonder what happens if the one person is a wonderful humanitarian, someone who has dedicated his life to science and solving complex issues facing the world, inventing numerous vaccines and other public health cures, while the five people are all evil people, such as Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, Somoza, and Putin. Okay, so it’s an extreme example. But the point is, does utilitarianism allow us to consider the “value” of the lives being considered? Perhaps the weights in the lottery could be adjusted numerically to compensate for quality of the lives.
I have read more than one utilitarian "formula" that allows for quality of lives. The problem was that none of them have enough variables or formulas to actually do the calculation. When we have multiple cultures and religions and with different objective and relative moral values, that just compounds the complexity of the formulas. However, in the real world, we are often lacking critical information when a call needs to be made. Rescuers rarely know much about the people they are rushing to rescue. Same for The Trolley Problem.
Could a utilitarian philosophy with individual/minority rights be less morally dissonant? In the example of the organ harvest, you would be breaking the human rights of the individual and so it would not be permissible.
Everyone’s idea of utilitarianism is different. Certain benefits or outcomes will seem like the greatest good depending on the person, even though it may not be “correct” in being the greatest good outcome. Even though to me, the “greatest good ” part of greatest number seems more like an opinion. Unfortunately it seems alot of things are subjective when you break them down far enough. I like the idea of utilitarianism, but oh boy it can lead to some crazy rationalizations lmao
Hope they didn't have to fly to the store and find some red and blue balls, they're all gonna be dead by the time they figire out what they're doing! 😄 The Weighted Lottery actually seems like a fair solution at first but allowing 5 to die for 1 just seems wrong to me when you think about it. To turn the tables once again though; what if that 1 person had the cure for cancer and would in fact save millions? Guess then you save the 1.
Rick Simpson oil, mega does vitamin c salts (green bottle), 3 month juice feast (John rose) besides there are at least a hundred books written on the subject. Cancer feeds on sugar. (Fruits don't count because they are fructose not glucose) a blend of medicinal mushroom extracts Chaga etc. This has more than everything you would need to start your journey. If you don't start after seeing this. Your the only one to blame.
Get the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe4
Definitely using the weighted lottery for deciding where to eat in the future haha. It seems like every ethical framework breaks down at the extremes or in particular situations 😕
The weighted lottery solution is another approach to utilitarianism from the perspective of equal opportunity. It doesn't solve the problem of utilitarianism. Rather, it redefines utilitarianism in a friendly tone.
your channel is very good
Thank you so much 😀
Utilitarianism isn't about fair representation though. It's fundamentally about pleasure and pain. If you draw the blue ball and rescue 1 person your still not maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
This is why I’m so confused and lost in Intro to Ethics. Every statement contradicts the preceding claim or is so unrealistic and convoluted.
Not necessarily. The people on the island aren't the only ones affected by the scenario. We can assume there are friends and family whose pain of loss, or pain of survivor's guilt, can be lessened by the application of a more fair/just application of utilitarianism. Society as a whole may feel more safe (pleasure) knowing that if they are in the same situation, and they were the lone individual, they would have a greater chance of being rescued than if the weighted lottery were not applied.
Pleasure is one take utilitarianists have had: others want to maximize: welfare, happiness, preferences, and finally rule utilitarianists (rules that maximize some previously mentioned utility),
@@orendafni Po-tay-to / po-tah-to. Call it what you will (pleasure, welfare, happiness, wellbeing), aren't they all still a desired state of being as opposed to an undesired state (or pleasure and pain, for short)? They comma at the end suggests you did not finish your sentence. I'm interested in the rest of your thought.
Yes but the chance of drawing a blue ball is very low, so you have to factor that in as well
Would be cool to use in elections and decide the government in one lottery draw!
Just Re-watched this, Because you guys and Awesome!
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed.
they pretty much summed it as we have certain rights that should be more important than any utilitarian action
What an underrated channel
Thank you!
No! This is absolutely from the perspective of the rescuers and not the victims. If I had the abilility to save five people at the cost of my own life, I would absolutely do it. Give human beings some credit for altruism. If five people were sacrificed for me, even though I had no say in it, I would hate the idea even if such an idea was acted on and accepted without my consent. To die to save others is right and a crowning achievement on a life well spent or otherwise. To be saved at the expense of other lives is unthinkable endless guilt and blame. Please, please never save me if others can be saved.
You are young, educated, and could potentially cure a disease or something equally as beneficial. The people on the other island are old folks from the nursing home whose cruise boat capsized. Does that give you pause to change your answer?
I think the status of the only person on the island in this matter alone is a consideration I believe that putting the only person on the island on this issue and considering the option alone is a consideration of the right of the minority.
Very good!
Thanks!
Excellent ❤️
Thank you!
amazing!
Thank you!
Great conversation as always! But I wonder what happens if the one person is a wonderful humanitarian, someone who has dedicated his life to science and solving complex issues facing the world, inventing numerous vaccines and other public health cures, while the five people are all evil people, such as Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, Somoza, and Putin. Okay, so it’s an extreme example. But the point is, does utilitarianism allow us to consider the “value” of the lives being considered? Perhaps the weights in the lottery could be adjusted numerically to compensate for quality of the lives.
I have read more than one utilitarian "formula" that allows for quality of lives. The problem was that none of them have enough variables or formulas to actually do the calculation. When we have multiple cultures and religions and with different objective and relative moral values, that just compounds the complexity of the formulas. However, in the real world, we are often lacking critical information when a call needs to be made. Rescuers rarely know much about the people they are rushing to rescue. Same for The Trolley Problem.
Could a utilitarian philosophy with individual/minority rights be less morally dissonant? In the example of the organ harvest, you would be breaking the human rights of the individual and so it would not be permissible.
Everyone’s idea of utilitarianism is different. Certain benefits or outcomes will seem like the greatest good depending on the person, even though it may not be “correct” in being the greatest good outcome. Even though to me, the “greatest good ” part of greatest number seems more like an opinion. Unfortunately it seems alot of things are subjective when you break them down far enough. I like the idea of utilitarianism, but oh boy it can lead to some crazy rationalizations lmao
Hope they didn't have to fly to the store and find some red and blue balls, they're all gonna be dead by the time they figire out what they're doing! 😄 The Weighted Lottery actually seems like a fair solution at first but allowing 5 to die for 1 just seems wrong to me when you think about it. To turn the tables once again though; what if that 1 person had the cure for cancer and would in fact save millions? Guess then you save the 1.
Rick Simpson oil, mega does vitamin c salts (green bottle), 3 month juice feast (John rose) besides there are at least a hundred books written on the subject. Cancer feeds on sugar. (Fruits don't count because they are fructose not glucose) a blend of medicinal mushroom extracts Chaga etc. This has more than everything you would need to start your journey. If you don't start after seeing this. Your the only one to blame.