But utilitarian ethics is why we have a military, so that few suffer miserably for the greater good of the whole country

I'm not talking about a liscensce to rape i'm talking about a one time thing, if you don't want to use rape as an example how about Robin hood? Steal from the rich and give to the poor, or if i was an organ theif and i stole your organs to save 4 people would that be justified

I like how you say i have no clue what it is without stating what it is

I've never read any scientific research that suggets the only way that climate change is reversible is to drastically reduce the population. But if you have any peer reviewed journal articles that explicitly say so, i'd be happy to go through them if you drop the link below

what do you mean silly burgers? Also I've replied to everyone here.

so you agree with my statement that few people who ascribe to utilitarianism actually live by it?

how have I misunderstood it?

um poverty is worse? And we don't need to reduce the number of people to save the environment

Not all kids suffer. Or rather for most (or some) their pleasure outweighs their suffering

they're preventing suffering

how is death more logical? That's worse than medical trials. Also if a life is a life then shouldn't one life be sacrificed to save the many?

There is this huge failure of societal progress when people think the only way to deal with crime properly is to punish criminals. — Mac

It's less about dealing with crime, more about saving lives

they're criminals. Also, I don't think it's ethical to let innocent people die of diseases when more could be done to save them.

I'd loath to meet a creature that let's others die due to disease

You think passivity is more moral? You're willing to let more people die just because you're not the one who pulls the trigger? How is more people dying a better solution? The funny thing is if such experiments were done we'd be closer to living in a utopia where no one would have to suffer or die from disease and we'd still be closer to ending the prison complex as an indirect result.

Ie less criminals due to family members dying of disease.

You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs and you can't make progress without sacrifices.

I think they're several clear examples where money does bring happiness and fulfilment. Like medicine.

Entrepreneurship consumes an incredible amount of time. — Adam's Off Ox

Compared to having a 9-5 job?

Entrepreneurship only takes more time as you're setting up the business but not after.. After they get more time

what is morally absolute?

Yes

my point is that power and influence go hand in hand, take religion for example, you could argue that power of religion dictates your moral views.

Also you haven't captured the switching of power accurately in your depiction because you're not measuring the correct level of power/influence of the people involved.

Like let's say you have 33 presidents that all had one moral view, would the power of the 34th incumbent be enough to change public opinion if it was contrary? Nope but if the subsequent 34 presidents supported this new moral view then of course the view would change

On homosexuality my point is, if you were born in a Greek society it would be seen as okay however if you were born in a 19th century Christian society it would be wrong. You see there's no objectivity here it's just boils down to what each society wants, how many people want it and if they have the power/ influence to enforce it.

Let me ask you, does an individuals moral view matter if it's contrary to what society thinks? And if it does matter how can you validate it?

For the murder I'm saying it goes much deeper than that.. There's also how we murder and who we murder. Is abortion wrong? What about euthenasia? Lethal force? Capital punishment?what about animals, do you see how all these factors have no meaning on their own but are purely determined by what the majority of people think? How can you prove something is right if you're the only one that believes it? Doesn't it boil down to mass belief which is determined by power and influence.

omg the world is soo much bigger than the United States you know...

no the justice system isn't perfect but I don't see how this idea makes it less perfect

how am I being defensive, I'm merely countering your point

I said prisoners not black folk

isn't life imprisonment or capital punishment slavery?

I wasn't talking about that — Mac

I'm just saying you weigh the pros and the cons, the pros win.

The long term political goal is to establish either a technocracy or Plato's Republic. To do this it starts by convincing one person at a time.

No You're the one not taking into account the consequences of letting all the innocent people die from diseases that we could've cured by now.

One need only look at your avatar and see a famous case — Outlander

What does my Avatar have to do with it?

DNA exonerations and substantial settlements for the wrongly convicted — Outlander

Well I offer 2 solutions, 1 people could volunteer for the trials or 2 it could only be for those criminals that we're dead sure did it... Like tonnes of whiteness, footage, DNA etc, hec people who even admit to it.

And I believe - no evidence in hand and subject to correction - that some prisoners can and do volunteer to be guinea pigs. — tim wood

So are you agreeing with me?

Sound like you advocate Utalitarianism. — Wheatley

Yes

Well you said if it turns out the prisoner is innocent and I'm saying for example by the worst I mean gunmen who shot down people in broad daylight with tonnes of witnesses.

As for the other excuses you gave, why aren't you thinking more about the results? Like how many people we'll end up saving from cancer, HIV and various other diseases?

Why I'm not a criminal?

But isn't that just the bias you're already used to? You only recommend it because that's what you grew up with.

Think about men who don't support women's rights because that's not the society they grew up in and not the society they want to live in.

It's wrong for you to judge a meat eater as being morally clean while an animal abuser as wrong they're either both right or both wrong. If you were vegan it would be understandable.

It doesn't matter if you feel more comfortable with it or not that's just appeal to emotion.

Well my first question is when you mentioned the cat vs the beef, was that a matter of preference or would you judge the person lighting the cat as morally wrong while the one eating the beef is morally right?

Personally, a lot of the motivation to be moral is the recognition of how society functions best when I'm looking out for both my best interests and the best interests of others — Judaka

What about the interests of the animals? As well as applying logic to the moral standards we set for ourselves? Could you really say society is functioning better if it's not functioning logically? Is that not a faulty assumption?

I don't really want to see my neighbour setting his cat on fire but I'm happy for him to eat as much steak as he pleases. — Judaka

You don't want to see it but that's only because your used to it even if it's not morally right. What about the moral repercussions that has? Like if you lived in a society where women don't have rights but since that's what your comfortable seeing you end up not supporting equality?

I thought the hypothesis comes before the theory

but how is the person ignorant? I mean they know the cow is dead don't they? And how is it more of an intentional choice? And how're they more callous?

it doesn't have to be material, for example it could be friends

squirrels aren't killed slowly, their deaths are quite swift at the hands of the predator that's trying to be efficient.