Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
1–10 of 117 posts
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#2Key quote from the article (IMHO):
"The idea is not that people are or are not utilitarian; it’s that they will cite being utilitarian when it behooves them. People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgement and seek a principle."
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#3Key quote from the article (IMHO): "The idea is not that people are or are not utilitarian; it’s that they will cite being utilitarian when it behooves them. People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgement and seek a principle."
The real joke is that philosophers do this, too. If your ethical theory doesn't quite fit with people's moral intuitions, most philosophers will argue that, in itself, is a problem with the theory.
This is why I don't put much stock in ethical theory--if intuition is a good enough moral guide that we use it to refute ethical theories, why do we need a theory? More damningly, on what other grounds can we possibly criticize an ethical theory?
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#4I call BS on the test.
Interesting. You state that Casey Jones should divert the train, yet this will cause the death of the person trapped on the railway siding. This seems to be inconsistent with your belief that it is always wrong to cause another person's death. It is somewhat perplexing that you responded this way, since you do not believe that this course of action is necessiated by any general moral requirement to maximise the happiness of the greatest number of people. More of this later. For now, let's see what you make of the scenario below.
Choosing to let 1 person die so that 5 can live does not mean I find that action moral. It's simply the better of two options.
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#5I read an interesting paper on this phenomenon years ago (that we use morality to justify, not reason).
A summary (not written by me): According to Haidt's (2001) social intuitionist model (SIM), an individual's moral judgment normally arises from automatic 'moral intuitions'. Private moral reasoning—when it occurs—is biased and post hoc, serving to justify the moral judgment determined by the individual's intuitions.
http://www.mc.edu/campus/academics/BIO/emotional%20dog%20rat...
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#6Key quote from the article (IMHO): "The idea is not that people are or are not utilitarian; it’s that they will cite being utilitarian when it behooves them. People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgement and seek a principle."
The book "Ill Gotten Gains" by Leo Katz explores this subject in depth from the perspective of a lawyer. His thesis is that libertarianism can not be founded on utilitarianism, rather, it must have (and does) have a deontological foundation. It's a must read for anyone who finds this sort of thing interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Gotten-Gains-Evasion-Blackmail-Kin...
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#7I call BS on the test. Interesting. You state that Casey Jones should divert the train, yet this will cause the death of the person trapped on the railway siding. This seems to be inconsistent with your belief that it is always wrong to cause another person's death. It is somewhat perplexing that you responded this way, since you do not believe that this course of action is necessiated by any general moral requiremen…
That's a pretty simplistic view, no? You don't believe causing a death is different than not preventing other deaths? Or perhaps it is different, but there is a certain moral penalty for letting a person die, and this is less than the moral penalty for letting 5 die? What if instead of 5, it was just a pregnant woman (1.5?)
Admittedly, that question isn't my favorite, as both options are relatively passive. How do you feel about the situations where a more active role is required? Would you push the man over the railing to save 5?
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#8Another flaw in this sort of study is that there's an enormous disconnect between what we say we would do, and what we would actually do.
I might say "yes, I would push Chip/Tyrone over the rail", because I really do believe that's the best thing to do. But if I were actually faced with that dilemma and had to murder someone, could I do it?
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#9I call BS on the test. Interesting. You state that Casey Jones should divert the train, yet this will cause the death of the person trapped on the railway siding. This seems to be inconsistent with your belief that it is always wrong to cause another person's death. It is somewhat perplexing that you responded this way, since you do not believe that this course of action is necessiated by any general moral requiremen…
It's simply the better of two options.
You feel this way, but many people will avoid switching the train.
The point of the experiments is to see if (statistically) more or fewer people are willing to switch the train based on the race of the people involved.
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#10That explains the behavior of all the drivers as I cycle to work.
They are all moral philosophers and believe that by killing me they provide donor organs to save 6 others.
Maybe I need a cycling top that says "I don't carry a donor card"