Alarming Acts: Actions in order to maximize happiness that just seem wrong
Accomodation: Alarming acts aren’t alarming, since they don’t have the absurd implications
Reform: Alarming acts are alarming, but they are still the right decision. The Intuition is wrong and should be reformed, Intuition differs for each culture.
Debunking: Proving that an argument is wrong
Oversensitive: Moral Intuition responds to things, that aren’t relevant
Undersensitive: Moral Intuition doesn’t respond to things, that are relevant
Facts:
Why do most people not push?
Emotional response (intuition) of S1 outweights the cost benefit thinking of S2
(Im)Personal (Force)?
Distance: nope (remote vs normal)
Touching: nope (pole vs normal)
Force:
Means vs Side-effect?
“Doctrine of Double Effect” p. 218
Kant: “Treat people always as an end and never as a means only”
Strategic vs. Terror Bombing
Painkillers to kill Vs. Painkillers to lessen pain with the risk of killing
→ Obstacle collide case
Footbridges:
Normal footbridge:
Push: 31%
Switch:
Remote footbridge with trap door:
Switch trap door far: 63%
Switch trap door close: 59%
Pole footbridge:
Push: 33%
Obstacle collide case:
How to live like a Utilitarist (254-266)?
You don’t have to be a happyness pump
Trying to maximize the happyness in the world at all cost is not utitlitaristic
More negative comes out of it if you force it to an extreme (diet example)
Limitations: Psychological, social, time, money
You become unhappy and are a bad role model
How much Utilitarianism?
Depends on the person
Social dimension:
Being a role model will do more good than being an unappealing hero
“If what utilitarianism asks of you seems absurd, then it’s not what utilitarianism actually asks from you” p. 258
Singers Problem
Singers Problem (p. 258)
Rescuing a drowning child will ruin your $500 suit → not rescuing is morally wrong
Rescuing a child for 500$ → not rescuing doesn’t seem morally wrong
Biggest Factor: Distance
Near: 68% help
Far: 34% help
Reasons:
Reciprocity (262)
Identifyable victim effect
Questions:
Part 1:
If emotions are a psychological adaptation in order to maximize survivability, they are felt for a reason. Why exactly are negative emotions then felt in the trolley example? Are there factors one considers that are not part of the given problem (example revenge of family)?
What if the utilitaristic decision is only right in the trolley dilemma simulation but not in the real world?
What if our emotions are only oversensitive in the trolley dilemma simulation without us even knowing it since they subconsiously consider more implications?
Part 2:
Is being an unappealing hero really worse than a moderate role model? (257-258)
Isn’t helping a nearby person (who suffers the same as a distanc one) the more utilitaristic decision since it provides the helping person with more happiness?
Problems:
p. 217: “pyhsical mechanism seems to be psychologically relevant”
p. 217: “automatic settings are…leading us astray” maybe just wrong in the simulation because they are oversensitive, but for the real world they are right
p. 257: “If you were to try (being a happyness pump), you would be miserable”
Why not “Reform”?
p. 257 “Brains were not designed to care deeply about the happiness of strangers” → “Cut yourself a lot of slack”