Allgemein §

• Seite 211-218 und 254-266

Begriffe §

• 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”
  • Why not “Reform”?