I think i just disagree with the utilitarian mindset. Trying to chart and compare everyone’s happiness like this, I don’t believe it can effectively be extrapolated into this situation. If it’s a pure mathematical problem, sure, you’re correct no torture! But I don’t follow this model at all.
If we’re dealing with these infinities, we don’t even need to torture him. We can make him prick his finger every day for the rest of eternity, and technically that’s still -infinite utils. But no one actually cares that much about this person, do they? If I were that person I wouldn’t give a fuck. Diabetics do that shit for free!
If we’re dealing with these infinities, we don’t even need to torture him. We can make him prick his finger every day for the rest of eternity, and technically that’s still -infinite utils.
Definitely an interesting addition to the thought experiment, and I think I’d have to agree with you. One dude can take the finger-prick hell if it brings about FALGSC for the rest of us. So then the interesting question is, how bad does this torture need to be before we’d say it’s probably not worth the solution of finite problems in our world? I don’t have a good answer for it.
Another aspect is that the “torture” in the initial framing can be a lot of things. What I imagine when someone says that is probably different from what you imagine. So we’d have to define exactly what kind of torture we’re talking about.
Yeah I think one of the major problems with utilitarianism is that it pushes ethics back onto refining the accuracy of a model. So the result is that the people who naively follow it (as in, people like me who have never actually engaged with the literature) will always be able to justify spending more time refining that model. This is a super common problem with online debate bro types.
But even if it’s not a great mental tool for individuals, when you’re talking about large organizations I’m not sure there’s an alternative other than… just guessing and letting the outcomes arise however they happen to.
Also, there are major issues with how exactly you define the good that you’re supposedly maximizing for, as well as the fact that if you follow it to its logical conclusion, you would need to understand the ramifications of an action unto the end of eternity in order to actually judge it
The other problem with utilitarianism was very elegantly pointed out by @Chapo_is_Red . “Who the fuck made this button?”
A lot of utilitarian ideas tend to accept some false dichotomy or some condition as absolute. Like “is torture ok if it stops terrorist attacks?” But wait, why are terrorists attacking in the first place? And why are we assuming the torture will work? etc etc.
also why start with happiness or pleasure, if there is one thing the Stoics can teach us is that even Epicurianism isn’t fail safe and we should really consider our own nature as social animals first, this doesn’t mean serving for the death machine but taking seriously that we only thrive as an instrumental part of a greater whole, not seeking happiness and pleasure (also those are kinda bourgeois and liberal but that’s for another day)
I think i just disagree with the utilitarian mindset. Trying to chart and compare everyone’s happiness like this, I don’t believe it can effectively be extrapolated into this situation. If it’s a pure mathematical problem, sure, you’re correct no torture! But I don’t follow this model at all.
Relevant comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-04-03
