John Stuart Mill said a famous quote: "I would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." I think I could also apply this quote to the scenario above. I think Socrates could argue that it is most virtuous for me, if I were in the situation, to not press the button because it might be my purpose or ergon. It could be my ergon to forsake my life to save other lives. Because John Stuart Mill referred to Socrates I feel it necessary to bring up the fact that Socrates said appetites were controlled by the spirit and the spirit by reason. In this situation, the appetite would say to push the button so I could live. My spirit would be chaotic with emotions on whether I wanted to live or die. If my reason was built in the utilitiarianistic view, I would probably not push the button in hopes that maybe the other room does not push the button and both rooms lives, or they push the button and I don't have to live with a selfish decision of pushing the button killing innocent lives for the sake of mine and others I don't know. If I were to push the button I would be the "pig satisfied." I'd rather not be the pig satisfied.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
The Batman Scenario
In class on Monday we discussed scenarios that challenged the felicific calculus of utilitarianism. The felicific calculus is a way to calculate the moral rightness of an action. An action is morally right when the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people is a consequence. An action is morally right when the least amount of pain for the greatest amount of people is a consequence as well. In one of the Batman movies we see that the Joker places a group of people in one room and a group of criminals in another. Each room has a set time to decide whether or not to push a button. When this button is pushed then the room opposite of the room who pushed the button will explode, leaving people in the room who pushed the button alive. If I were looking at this situation in a utilitarian point of view, I wouldn't push the button. I would actually rather have the other room press the button so that my room would explode. I think this would be in agreement with the felicific calculus because I wouldn't have to live through the fact that I pushed a button to be selfish and live. I would rather die so that the other people in the room live feeling the greatest amount of happiness, and in turn the least amount of pain on my part.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With the button situation I believe that Kant would say to not press the button. While you might see it as your duty to press the button and therefore save everyone in your room's life, pressing the button would not follow the categorical imperative. I don't believe that killing other people to save yourself could be willed as a universal law because in this scenario it is possible that both rooms could live. If the other room had not planned on pushing the button then you would be killing them for no reason. There is no possible way to predict the outcome and therefor Kant would think it morally correct to not push the button. On, the other hand, I believe that Mill would say to push the button. Mill knows the consequence of pushing the button which would be saving the life of everyone in your room. Therefore, he would see the morally correct decision as pressing the button, even if it means killing the other room. Personally, I would not press the button.
ReplyDelete