• ChrisGrantsBrownlow@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t even need a lunatic or mass murderer. As you say, the logical choice is to kill one person. For the next person, the logical choice is to kill two people, and so on.

    • ApfelstrudelWAKASAGI@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      It does create the funny paradox where, up to a certain point, a rational utilitarian would choose to kill and a rational mass murderer trying to maximise deaths would choose to double it.

            • ApfelstrudelWAKASAGI@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Idk which moral system you operate under, but I’m concerned with minimising human suffering. That implies hitting kill because chances of a mass murderer are too high not to. You also don’t follow traffic laws to a t, but exercise caution because you don’t really care whose fault it ends up being, you want to avoid bad outcomes (in this case the extinction of humankind).

                • ApfelstrudelWAKASAGI@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Even if your moral system solves those “problems”, you just “solved” them by substituting the obvious and logical base of utility through personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is no inherent good, unlike utility, if people are unhappy/“feel bad”, it doesn’t matter how personally responsible everyone is being, that world is still a shit place.

                  Also, the threat isn’t imagined. I can assure you that there are a lot more than one person on earth who would choose to kill as many people as possible if given the option.