Xequecal wrote:
I would have to agree that utilitarian ethics is the only way to go.
For example, the US propping up fascist dictators during the Cold War is certainly incredibly immoral on any kind of black and white ethics system, we helped them massacre people. Hell, we even overthrew legitimately democratically-elected governments when it suited us. But how many people, especially conservatives who are much more likely to espouse black-and-white ethics, are going to say we shouldn't have done any of that? The fact is we did it because it would have been worse for us if we hadn't, and everyone else can get ****.
This actually illustrates the problem with utilitarian ethics. It's almost impossible to calculate whether more people were benefitted or harmed by such actions, to what degree, and within what timeframe.
Amusingly, many people who claim to be in favor of utilitarian ethics would completely ignore any actual gain, because in reality they aren't utilitarians. They reject any benefit gained by the U.S. because they also want it to be
a prioi unethical for a large, powerful, rich nation to do anything to its own advantage in dealing with a smaller, poorer one (bonus points for racism, as well) and thus any "utilitarian" calculation by them is going to be preordained to decide that the action was unethical.
Ultimately, the reason morals and ethics exist is to allow people to interact without slaughtering each other. Consistency within an ethical system is only useful as long as it pursues societal harmony (by which I mean the ability of people to live peaceably together, not some utopian idea of harmony). As soon as you cross the line into demanding absurdity, or self-sacrifice for no purpose other than the internal consistency of the ethical system for its own sake, you've just defeated the entire purpose of the system.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
