Wilco, "Jesus, Etc."
 |
| Seeing the forest for the trees. |
As mentioned, while writing Losing My Religions, I finally and fully lost my belief in total utilitarianism.
This is more thoroughly argued in the chapter "Biting the Philosophical Bullet," but a brief thought experiment: If I could avoid the slightest unpleasantness (a barely-noticeable muscle spasm) by torturing Jude Law, it would be immoral ("wrong") to make that choice. If Robert Downey Jr. was offered the same choice -- muscle spasm or join me in torturing Jude -- it would also be wrong for Robert to make that choice.
There is simply no number of people suffering from a brief muscle spasm that would offset torturing one individual. No entity (e.g., "the universe") is actually experiencing the collective sum suffering of a trillion brief muscle spasms. Suffering only exists in an individual mind.
Yes, by throwing out total utilitarianism, you can create a variety of scenarios that go against our intuitions. But none of those thought experiments is as fatal as the idea that you can offset torture to prevent lesser suffering in others. (The situation is even worse if the torture is "offset" by the most fleeting pleasure in a trillion individuals.)
As mentioned, this is the thought process behind Suffering-Focused Ethics. Or, to put it another way: We should focus on those individuals who: 1. Exist, 2. Are suffering the most, and 3. Who we can help.
A lot better than worrying about mites.
No comments:
Post a Comment