Let's say it would take the torture and death of 100 million people to find the cure for death and aging. The cure would be cheap and easy to make and is easily distributed to the rest of the world's population.  With utilitarianism, it seems like it would be a morally just thing to do. Does utilitarianism have some kind of caveat to deal with that kind of situation? Are the rights of the few protected? A similar situation would be a doctor killing someone to harvest their organs to save the lives of multiple people. Is that morally just with utilitarianism?
121736
Utilitarianism, when dealing with the question of what is the best course of action for a whole group (community, country, society as whole, etc...), states that the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people should be the decision criteria.    "The well-being of the group is simply the sum total of the interests of the all of its members."   But it seems to me that this would immediately lead to the justification of such scenarios as:   Scientists are testing a new medical procedure or drug, and lab experiments or animal trials can't provide any conclusive results. It would then be ethical to force a small number of people to undergo clinical trials (with or without their consent), since this would lead to larger benefits to humanity as a whole.  It would be ethical to euthanize severely disabled people, who cannot contribute meaningfully to society, and would require significant resources to be taken care of, since the people who have to take care of them would otherwise be happier. This would be especially true if they had no family who cared about them (i.e. whose happiness would be reduced by their death). Eugenics would be ethical.    And all sorts of similar situations were one could argue that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Situations which I call "ethical totalitarianism" (if there is a more accurate term please correct me).   My question is, how do utilitarians avoid justifying such scenarios? Or would a utilitarian say that these scenarios are indeed justified?
35782
I see this in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins:       If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But   that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which   means he is not omnipotent.   Is this argument sound?
86906
In the TNG episode , Worf ends up being the only viable donor available to save the life of an injured Romulan.      Crusher: "Worf, you are the only one who can save his life."   Worf: "Then he will die."   Surely a Vulcan would be a superior match for obtaining vital bodily fluids. And with a crew compliment of 1,014 members there wasn't a single Vulcan serving on the Enterprise-D?      Worf: "There is a substance within my cells which you need to survive."   Patahk: "Then you've come to hear me beg for my life?"   Worf: "No."   Patahk: "I would rather die than pollute my body with Klingon filth!"
94272
It is a very common fallacy that I've seen in many circles - In the world of media and in everyday life. In some cases it doesn't feel like a fallacy, but seems to make a point in that particular context.   For instance, imagine someone who is obese (controversial subject; I know). This person goes on advising people about health issues not necessarily obesity related but health in general. If someone else makes the comment "You shouldn't take health advice from that fat man." it is tu quoque, right? Since the other person is indeed obese and not addressing his own issues, doesn't that make him a hypocrite? Does being a hypocrite invalidates the credibility of his advices? If that is the case then is it logically sound to say "You shouldn't take health advice from that hypocrite"?  What's really confusing to me is why these two statements are considered different, even if they saying the same thing (hypocrite = staying obese). So is this one of those fallacies that is somehow OK to make given the context is clear and consistent?
65573
I think I misunderstand Horcruxes here - are they used up? Or do they just exist to stop the person dying but are not actually 'used up' in the process? By this logic someone could be killed infinite times and still not die?
79342
This is a pretty well known quote from the Star Wars movies. But isn't it a bit paradoxical?   It in itself is an absolute, and it was said by a Jedi (Obi-Wan if I recall correctly?). If this holds true, then is he leaning towards the Sith himself? If it isn't true, then both Jedi and Sith can deal in absolutes and the statement is pointless.  Surely it should be phased along the lines of "Jedi's should avoid dealing in absolutes" or something similar?
38287
I am interested in how uncertainty can be accounted for when considering the risk of extinction of a species. Forgive me for extending a rather tired thought experiment, but at least it's familiar territory and I hope it illustrates what I am trying to understand.  Let's say that Schrödinger was not satisfied with killing and not killing only one cat, so he went out and collected the last 15 remaining Himalayan Snow-Cats. He put each one in a box with a vial of poison, hammer, and a trigger device for releasing the hammer. Each trigger device has a known probability of releasing the hammer within any given hour, and the poison will take 5 hours to kill a cat (things got a bit trippy when he used radioactive decay, so this time he steers clear of quantum mechanics). After one hour, Schrödinger receives a notice from the ethics board telling him he's nuts and ordering him to release the cats immediately. He pushes a button which opens a cat-flap at the back of each box, thus releasing them all back into the wild. By the time the humane society check the boxes, all the cats have bolted. Before anyone can restrain him, Schrödinger detonates the remaining triggers, so nobody knows how many of the cats were poisoned.  The probability that each of the cats is poisoned is as follows:   0.17 0.46 0.62 0.08 0.40 0.76 0.03 0.47 0.53 0.32 0.21 0.85 0.31 0.38 0.69   After 5 hours have elapsed and all poisoned cats have died, what is the probability that there are:   (A) More than 10 Himalayan Snow-Cats still alive  (B) 10 or less still alive (C) 5 or less still alive (D) 2 or less still alive
31314
I would imagine that the answer to this question would be population control, especially since even if one sibling is homosexual this does not necessarily mean that the other siblings will be too.
31128
I know death and cancer doesn't hurt humans' reproductive success. It's not helping either.  Why do we die? Why dying humans (all of us) are common? What's the point of dying?
97298
I'm sure everyone is familiar with the Ship of Theseus paradox, basically "If you replace parts of a ship over time until none of the original ship is left, is the end product still the same ship?"  I just read pop philosophy books, so spare me if this is an idiotic question, but could this be applied to the Brain and consciousness? If you were the take individual atoms/neurons, and somehow replace them with its exact copy one at a time, how would the person experience that?   I don't think there would be an interruption of consciousness, but at the end it's a completely separate (but identical) brain from the one you started with. Exactly as if you had just cloned the whole thing, right? But without interruption.  What interests me is the gradual transition of consciousness here, is it possible to know how that would  work?  I think I remember hearing people argue similarly for both the existence of a transcendent soul and also AI consciousness. And the only other discussion I found of this was on a flat earth forum, so I don't know what to make of that.   I hope I articulated my question clearly. Thank you!
59316
This was  on Quora. I thought about it a little bit but didn't make much progress beyond some obvious upper and lower bounds. The answer probably depends on AC and perhaps also GCH or other axioms. A quick search also failed to provide answers.
49596
Suppose the following dialogue:  ... &quot;I accept only one notion of land property. Namely, 'I am doing my stuff here, therefore I am here&quot;. &quot;But this means,&quot; he responded, &quot;you can break into any place and stay there, using this rule.&quot; &quot;There is another rule, though. Right to act in its most natural sense, 'I am here, therefore I am doing my stuff here.&quot; &quot;But do not these rules put together become circular reasoning?&quot; &quot;Of course, they do,&quot; I put my head closer to him, &quot;and this is exactly that rare case when circular reasoning is not only sufficient, but is necessary.&quot; &quot;But why is that? Circular reasoning never was a correct argument.&quot; &quot;There are many circular things happening in nature. Life forms, for example, exist only in order to produce new life forms or to prolongate their own lifetime. Is there any reason to say this can't be the case for reason itself? Why must reasoning not be circular?&quot; ...  Can circular reasoning ever be justified? For example, we know all the words in our languages can't be defined using other words without the use of circularity. We know logic can't prove itself without circularity. Are these arguments rational? Are there any other arguments where circular reasoning is still rational?
50179
In a , I mentioned the possibility of killing a character and restoring them to life as a possible method of removing conditions from them. On reflection, I have no idea whether this works or not, and I can't find anything in my books to prove or disprove it.  Are some or all conditions removed when a character dies? If the answer is some, which ones?
55146
I never saw anyone work as hard as he did, many a time I saw him on the weekends working to his highest standards to give the best research he could give.   From the context, I understand many a time equals many times. My question is when we can use this structure. Can we, for example, say many a person in place of many people?  A link explaining this structure will be appreciated.
88448
I am a young man who has recently reached a point of financial stability. I'm starting to think about long-term plans which may one day buy a home, or provide for myself in old age.  This raises the question of savings and investments, which causes me some ethical concerns.  I don't have an issue with investment in its basic form. Providing people money to help them do business, allowing it to grow and gaining interest in gratitude is not an issue for me.  The problem comes when we realise that a lot of the most financially successful businesses succeed due to addiction in their customers. Alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pornography, high interest financial services, and a number of others all rely on customers becoming dependent, unable to keep from buying their services. Because of this dependency, a lot of money is made in ethically questionable businesses, and professional investors (whose job is only to make as much money as possible) will choose to put money into these businesses.  The alternative would be to look in to investing myself. Although without some good practical knowledge, this would resemble gambling, throwing my money at whatever business takes my fancy, hoping for the best.  Being concerned about ethics, how can I go about investments and/or savings? Are there businesses which professionally invest ethically?
6091
Socrates continually admonished his interlocutors to become more introspective, arguing passionately for self-examination:     The unexamined life is not worth living.   But an examined life is painful, and necessitates an involvement with real problems. This is why it's worth living -- the unreflective are easily trapped into a living death of the mind by mythology, as the reflective sometimes are by ideology. In both cares we are deadened, sleepwalking through our lives blind and deaf, incapable of interacting with the world as it actually is much less imagining the world as it should be.  Now, we know of course that Socrates did not refrain from commenting on the generally unreflective character of his fellow Athenians. This is really the heart of my question. Certain reactionary critics might suggest that it's all well and good to closely examine one's own beliefs and values, but why should you go about examining the beliefs and values of others?
54404
"Look into the motives which have induced men, once united by their   common needs in a general society, to unite themselves still more   intimately by means of civil societies: you will find no other motive   than that of assuring the property, life and liberty of each member by   the protection of all."   Would anyone please tell me what the following means?, or what does than that of assuring mean?     ... than that of assuring the property, life and liberty of each member   by the protection of all."   And, Would you possibly elaborate this:assuring the property, life and liberty of each member by the protection of all.