
The Limited Role of Utility Calculations in Moral Judgment - randomname2
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160084
======
throwaway3042
I'm kind of disapointed that this doesn't really reference existing
philisophical ideas about morals or ethics. A lot of what the article talks
about is well known in philosphy. Utilitarianism isn't very popular today as
it has a lot of flaws.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms)

Here are some relevant keywords that I expected to see in the article, but
didn't find.

Ethical intuitionism

Deontological ethics

Virtue ethics

Consequentialism

~~~
twblalock
This is not an article about ethical philosophy per se. The article is
concerned with how people _actually_ think when they make moral judgments, not
how they _should_ think, or what their conclusions ought to be. In particular,
the article asserts that people don't think in utilitarian terms when they
make moral judgments.

Besides, it's not like every paper related to ethics should contain a summary
of every ethical framework you listed. It's a research paper, and its intended
audience knows those things already. It's not a syllabus for a sophomore
survey course on ethics.

------
adrianratnapala
Although this is yet another study about how human beings differ from some
"rational" ideal, it doesn't conclude that we are irrational. Rather it seems
to give us pause for thought about utilitarianism.

I think people are mostly right to have counter-utilitarian intuitions.
Utilitarinism automatically places the the reasoner in the position of an
omniscient fairy-empress how knows what is good for everyobody and can act on
it.

But nobody is really in that situation. We are interacting parts in a
enourmous system. We affect other people, and we adapt to the effects that
others have on us.

All this works better if we obey certain rough and ready rules of right and
wrong and respect each other rather vaguely defined rights. Evolution has
given us a moral sense that encourages just that. It isn't perfect, but it
works a lot better than pretending to be a fairy-empress.

------
alexvr
A class on moral philosophy screwed me up for a while early in college. All
the critical thinking and fancy vocabulary about the topic made me think
morality was in some way real - I was all concerned about violating "moral
laws." It's amazing how smart people can be so grossly deluded and incorrect
about things like this.

"Am I wasting my potential?! Is this action maximizing my contribution to
general welfare?! Is Famous Person better than me because he helped more
people?!" Totally neurotic.

This kicked off an era of serious philosophizing, and I began to see countless
contradictions and paradoxes with utilitarianism, etc.

For example, I started to see that the notion of "selfhood" was just a social
invention or cognitive construct, because I reasoned that we're just
perpetually changing aspects of nature, and our separateness is just opinion.
So then I wondered how the hell anyone could be deserving of blame or credit
if they don't actually exist, or if it was their "former self" who committed
the crime, etc.

It's kind of annoying but cute to see some popular "thinkers" and writers --
fancy-smarty-pants _neuroscientists_ and _atheists_, even -- who actually
think morality is real, as though there are actual objective problems out
there somewhere. As though you could actually do a "bad thing" or a "good
thing." That grinds my gears a little because it's very hypocritical: They'll
write an entire book disparaging religious people who believe things without
evidence, and they'll write another book on why, according to their
pseudoscientific-philosophical horse shit, morality can be "derived from
science" [vomit].

But it's easy for smart people to cling to morality as an existential anchor
point when they don't have religion to fall back on. It's hard to accept that
you're in free fall. But it's nice once you come around and accept reality for
what it is.

~~~
lbhnact
What words would you use to tell your friends and family about why someone
shouldn't stick a gun in your face and take anything they want?

And if the complicated and often contradictory paths through considerations of
ethics are 'annoying' to you, why? Are they 'wrong' on some moral plane that
'doesn't exist?'.

Ethics, life, and why we are all here is hard stuff. But if you think there's
no point, then please don't vote in the rest of our elections this fall!

~~~
alexvr
It's not wrong to stick a gun in someone's face. It's fine to pull the trigger
too, if you're not considering the laws our civilization invented. It's all
just opinion: You might not like being robbed, shot, or killed, but that's
your opinion; it's not "bad" in any real way whatsoever. I don't like pain or
the idea of dying before I'm ready either, but it's not an actual problem or
anything like that. Just preference. It would be quite remarkable to somehow
violate the way things are. Next time you see someone do something "wrong," or
"bad," or "unethical," please try to use your senses to observe the "bad" or
"problem" in the situation. Where is it? I'd love to see a picture of a real
violation of nature, a real problem.

To your second question, such things are annoying to me because it is my
nature to be annoyed by ignorance. Many humans are naturally compelled to seek
understanding. There is nothing wrong with ignorance; it's just my nature to
find it annoying.

Also, downvoting my comments doesn't make them incorrect.

------
michaelmrose
The trolley problem conflates too independent issues in a very artificial set
of circumstances.

Whether we are willing or required to make a utilitarian moral judgment and
whether we have the right to do so.

In a real life trolley problem on the battlefield or in the hospital the
commanding officer or doctor has been invested by society with his/her
position and is expected to do hypothetically the best thing for his
patients/soldiers. He has both the power and the right. I'm aware the military
situation is a LOT murkier but lets not over complicate.

It seems to me that many are conflicted over their right to take power over
other peoples lives and the expected benefit. Note how most feel that you are
required to switch the trolley when nobody would be harmed on the other track.
Most feel it unacceptable to take responsibility for choosing which party to
die in a one to one switch but find sacrificing one for 5 at least acceptable
as the benefit mounts it becomes harder to be squeamish about taking power
over others.

Maybe if they analyses more realistic scenarios it might be somewhat clearer.

