More Ethics: Can it be justified to kill a man who isn't an intentional threat?

[Aix]

Is there any reason that can justify, in your eyes, killing someone who isn't trying to kill you or anyone else? For example, if killing them would save many others? If you were ordered to kill them and you would be executed if you disobey? If you and them are the only ones on a deserted island with no food source or limited food?

[Simping For Hina]

One life over more. Justified by sheer numbers.

 

Ordered to having no outs. It is if you think you are worthy enough or selfish enough. Honestly, any scenario where you are put in this situation would just make you feel guilty, and you have no control over it anyways. Justified or not, it doesn't matter in that scenario simply because the justification isn't even existent. You can only justify what you have a say in. The person pointing a gun could easily kill you and the other guy, might as well just listen. Or you're both going to die anyways.

 

Survival of the fitness. One of you are going to die. Duke it out and see who wins, and then eat the funk out of that person or vice versa.

 

These scenarios are kind of piss poor, because they aren't about being just. They are about staying alive where you know you death is practically ensured.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeah the needs of the many come before the needs of the few. There is no sacrifice too great for the greater good

Utilitarianism is the only objective form of ethics

[IQuitDolphin]

Only issue with Utilitarianism is that what benefits the great for the few might not always be ethically right.

 

Ex. If I enslave 20% of the population to benefit the other 80%, would that make slavery right?

 

---

 

In the context of his scenario, where you are FORCED to kill someone to save many others, you have a moral obligation and a value *to preserve as much human life as possible*, killing 1 human being to save countless others is acceptable, but only if that is the only option you have left, which apparently it is.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes, it would be ethical. The problem is slavery rarely tend to be beneficial for the greater good (look at the south, more slaves were there than there were slave owners)

 

Ie. The south was not ethical, but theoretically slavery could be ethical

[vla1ne]

Yes, it would be ethical. The problem is slavery rarely tend to be beneficial for the greater good (look at the south, more slaves were there than there were slave owners)

 

Ie. The south was not ethical, but theoretically slavery could be ethical

why? why would you do this? you undermine everything humanity works for when you disregard the few to cater to the many. there are limits of course, but what you have just said is the equivalent of saying you wouldn't mind being forced to serve the many so long as you were a part of the few. utilitarian ethics is often immoral due to that very principle, how many is the many? how few is the few? 49-51% is many vs few, do the 49% deserve to become slaves for the needs of the many? if the world consisted of rapists, and those who opposed got raped, would it then be an ethical world simply because the majority of the world were rapists? you cannot use utilitarianism as an absolute measure, it is literally like saying that if at any point, Muslims became the majority, and they benefited from killing the minority of unbelievers as their scripture directed, it would be right simply because they held higher numbers.

 

as for the OP, i cannot clearly answer because i need more of a context, if he was not trying to harm anybody at all, and were inadvertently doing so, then possibly, if somebody else were going to do it, and would only avoid doing it if i killed that one person, then i would fight the people planning it, ect. if it were the absolute only option, no further clarity were provided, and i was going to be killed myself for not complying, then my life takes precedence, so yeah, i'd kill them.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

why? why would you do this? you undermine everything humanity works for when you disregard the few to cater to the many. there are limits of course, but what you have just said is the equivalent of saying you wouldn't mind being forced to serve the many so long as you were a part of the few. utilitarian ethics is often immoral due to that very principle, how many is the many? how few is the few? 49-51% is many vs few, do the 49% deserve to become slaves for the needs of the many? if the world consisted of rapists, and those who opposed got raped, would it then be an ethical world simply because the majority of the world were rapists? you cannot use utilitarianism as an absolute measure, it is literally like saying that if at any point, Muslims became the majority, and they benefited from killing the minority of unbelievers as their scripture directed, it would be right simply because they held higher numbers.

 

as for the OP, i cannot clearly answer because i need more of a context, if he was not trying to harm anybody at all, and were inadvertently doing so, then possibly, if somebody else were going to do it, and would only avoid doing it if i killed that one person, then i would fight the people planning it, ect. if it were the absolute only option, no further clarity were provided, and i was going to be killed myself for not complying, then my life takes precedence, so yeah, i'd kill them.

No, I did not say I would not mind. I'm saying for the greater good of humanity, it /may/ be possible that me being enslaved is the optimal outcome.

 

My personal happiness is immaterial in the matter, because I am an infinitesimally small part of a greater machine. Nobody deserves anything. It could be as simple as the sun is expanding in the red giant phase, 49 percent of humanity needs to labor for many hours a day in order to build rockets to save the majority of humanity from extinction. Hell utilitarianism would justify any number of people becoming slaves in order to give humanity as a whole a fighting chance. 

 

Is the utility gained by those rapists greater than the utility lost by those being raped? I'm fairly certain it would not be so. In which case it is not utilitarian. If it were the case, then it would be the most ideal path for humanity as a whole to follow. Similar line of thought for Islam, if killing every non Muslim was indeed the best course of action for the now Muslim majority (unlikely due to regional genetic diversity) then yes, it would be the logical choice to engage in

 

Deserve, individual happiness, and such have no meaning in aggregate objectivity 

 

Hmm, I rambled. Let me put it this way, most of what you described likely ISN'T utilitarian in aggregate. If it HOWEVER is, then subjective or non-sequitur terms like deserve and individual happiness, have no baring on the ideal outcome.

 

Yes, you can calculate the dopamine release from every action to measure happiness and satisfaction. I'm aware of that. Your individual happiness relative to the population as whole is irrelevant

[vla1ne]

No, I did not say I would not mind. I'm saying for the greater good of humanity, it /may/ be possible that me being enslaved is the optimal outcome.

 

My personal happiness is immaterial in the matter, because I am an infinitesimally small part of a greater machine. Nobody deserves anything. It could be as simple as the sun is expanding in the red giant phase, 49 percent of humanity needs to labor for many hours a day in order to build rockets to save the majority of humanity from extinction. Hell utilitarianism would justify any number of people becoming slaves in order to give humanity as a whole a fighting chance. 

 

Is the utility gained by those rapists greater than the utility lost by those being raped? I'm fairly certain it would not be so. In which case it is not utilitarian. If it were the case, then it would be the most ideal path for humanity as a whole to follow. Similar line of thought for Islam, if killing every non Muslim was indeed the best course of action for the now Muslim majority (unlikely due to regional genetic diversity) then yes, it would be the logical choice to engage in

 

Deserve, individual happiness, and such have no meaning in aggregate objectivity 

 

Hmm, I rambled. Let me put it this way, most of what you described likely ISN'T utilitarian in aggregate. If it HOWEVER is, then subjective or non-sequitur terms like deserve and individual happiness, have no baring on the ideal outcome.

 

Yes, you can calculate the dopamine release from every action to measure happiness and satisfaction. I'm aware of that. Your individual happiness relative to the population as whole is irrelevant

if rapists are the majority, and the majority rule is rape, then how are they wrong? using only utilitarian ethics.

 

if killers become the majority, and they kill everybody in the minority who are not killers, then are they wrong? using only utilitarian ethics.

 

if 45% of the poulation was enslaved, would the 55% be wrong? using only utilitarian ethics.

 

utilitarianism is only perfect when you forsake everything else, but the same could be said about every other form of ethics. if you forsake everything for only one thing, then of course that one thing will become perfect, but the question isn't is it perfect in a vaccum, the question is is it perfect upon exposing it to the rest of the rules? and the answer is no. you could never justify pure utilitarianism unless you removed every single other measure of ethics, because at it's purest, it only measures the benefit to numbers, it does not factor in individuals. if 500 would die to save 501 people of the same importance, then the person who wieldec nothing but utilitarian ethics, would not hesitate to kill those 500 by hand if necessary. if 500 had to be raped to save 501 people of the same importance from such a fate, then the pure utilitarian would personally rape those 500 if needed and give no f***s other then to the 500.

 

it is only a perfect system if you are willing to remove all other manner of emotion from the equation.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

if rapists are the majority, and the majority rule is rape, then how are they wrong? using only utilitarian ethics.

 

if killers become the majority, and they kill everybody in the minority who are not killers, then are they wrong? using only utilitarian ethics.

 

if 45% of the poulation was enslaved, would the 55% be wrong? using only utilitarian ethics.

 

utilitarianism is only perfect when you forsake everything else, but the same could be said about every other form of ethics. if you forsake everything for only one thing, then of course that one thing will become perfect, but the question isn't is it perfect in a vaccum, the question is is it perfect upon exposing it to the rest of the rules? and the answer is no. you could never justify pure utilitarianism unless you removed every single other measure of ethics, because at it's purest, it only measures the benefit to numbers, it does not factor in individuals. if 500 would die to save 501 people of the same importance, then the person who wieldec nothing but utilitarian ethics, would not hesitate to kill those 500 by hand if necessary. if 500 had to be raped to save 5001 people of the same importance from such a fate, then the pure utilitarian would personally rape those 500 if needed and give no fucks other then to the 500.

 

it is only a perfect system if you are willing to remove all other manner of emotion from the equation.

The hypothetical situation where 51% of the population are rapists and 49% are the victims. Ignoring the fact that there would be a shortage of victims and therefore some of the 51% wouldn't be happy, you're making the assumption that the pleasure from raping is equal to the displeasure from being raped. That's likely not true.

 

Therefore it's not the greater good at all

 

500 healthy dying to save 501 with terminal cancer is not an aggregate utilitarian decision because in the long run you're benefiting exactly 0 people. There's nuances you can ignore to demonify utilitarianism, and outside of maybe Stalin, historical figures HAVE largely ignored those nuances. 

 

Y'all are judging utilitarianism based one perverted version of it. Then again I suppose the point is moot since no human can completely erase his or her bias from their choices

[vla1ne]

gangrap

 

The hypothetical situation where 51% of the population are rapists and 49% are the victims. Ignoring the fact that there would be a shortage of victims and therefore some of the 51% wouldn't be happy, you're making the assumption that the pleasure from raping is equal to the displeasure from being raped. That's likely not true.

 

Therefore it's not the greater good at all

 

500 healthy dying to save 501 with terminal cancer is not an aggregate utilitarian decision because in the long run you're benefiting exactly 0 people. There's nuances you can ignore to demonify utilitarianism, and outside of maybe Stalin, historical figures HAVE largely ignored those nuances. 

 

Y'all are judging utilitarianism based one perverted version of it. Then again I suppose the point is moot since no human can completely erase his or her bias from their choices

never hear of gangrape? it's rather popular in europe this time of the muslim year. and how exactly are you measuring said pleasure? in dopamine? because if somebody gets an abnormal high from raping/ being raped, your comparison falls flat. if 20 people gain pleasure from raping 5, then by utilitarian ethics, more people gained pleasure and benefited from it, so it's the just action.

 

it's the greater good through the lens of utilitarianism. measured solely by majority pleasure and most gain, 50-1 pleasure is perfectly justified via utilitarian ethics.

 

 

didn't say cancer, i'm giving the exact same argument as the op, if you have to kill 500, to save 501 with the same importance from being killed, the pure utilitarian will gladly go through with said procedure, even if they have to hunt down those 500 and kill them by hand.

 

it's not perverted at all, i'm literally purifying it to the core ideal. the core ideal is numbers, the higher number wins, be it from dopamine or other measurement. i'm not even adding bias, i'm simply placing scenarios that are objectionable, and asking you to justify them based upon utilitarian ethics alone.

[Aix]

The subjective nature of the human experience makes it difficult to objectively measure. Dopamine is a horrible measure, because the effect of it on individuals will indisputably vary and it's relative. I can't confirm this, but someone subject to constant dopamine would grow numb to it.

 

To add to it, how do you weigh happiness to the value of a life?

 

 

If happiness and life are the only things value in this world, which I feel you are trying to assert, the ultimate perfect world is one where we all live the rest of eternity in mindless ecstasy with some measure to prevent our minds from going numb to it. Not only that, but we would also seek to create as many organisms as possible to join us in eternal ecstasy maximizing the aggregate happiness in this world.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

gangrap

 

 

never hear of gangrape? it's rather popular in europe this time of the muslim year. and how exactly are you measuring said pleasure? in dopamine? because if somebody gets an abnormal high from raping/ being raped, your comparison falls flat. if 20 people gain pleasure from raping 5, then by utilitarian ethics, more people gained pleasure and benefited from it, so it's the just action.

 

it's the greater good through the lens of utilitarianism. measured solely by majority pleasure and most gain, 50-1 pleasure is perfectly justified via utilitarian ethics.

 

 

didn't say cancer, i'm giving the exact same argument as the op, if you have to kill 500, to save 501 with the same importance from being killed, the pure utilitarian will gladly go through with said procedure, even if they have to hunt down those 500 and kill them by hand.

 

it's not perverted at all, i'm literally purifying it to the core ideal. the core ideal is numbers, the higher number wins, be it from dopamine or other measurement. i'm not even adding bias, i'm simply placing scenarios that are objectionable, and asking you to justify them based upon utilitarian ethics alone.

People in general only have 1 genitalia. Somone is gonna have to wait his or her turn.

 

What happens when that 5 kill themselves and the 20 are left miserable because their way of life doesn't exist anymore? Total benefit in the long run is finite under those analogies.

 

Um if you make it so every person is equal, and the gain from murder is worth the effort of the hunt...then...you're still not there? What if you kill all the females or all the males? Long run net 0

 

Utilitarianism is the ideal, but there are too many variables in every case, let alone in judging the theory as a whole for us to currently follow it

[vla1ne]

People in general only have 1 genitalia. Somone is gonna have to wait his or her turn.

 

What happens when that 5 kill themselves and the 20 are left miserable because their way of life doesn't exist anymore? Total benefit in the long run is finite under those analogies.

 

Um if you make it so every person is equal, and the gain from murder is worth the effort of the hunt...then...you're still not there? What if you kill all the females or all the males? Long run net 0

 

Utilitarianism is the ideal, but there are too many variables in every case, let alone in judging the theory as a whole for us to currently follow it

 

people in general have about 2-3 proper holes, that means 30-60/90 works out fine

 

and the majority still benefit, the needs of the many trump the needs of the few, as you have stated yourself. total benefit is still 15-0 even after losses. and it's no worse than killing the one to save the 500 under your same rules because needs of the many wins out as you've previously stated.. 

 

 

it remains either 0 or +1 from the single excess. it's necessary to save the extra 1 person, 

 

those variables do not matter under a pure lens of utilitarianism, so long as the majority make the gain, the action becomes moral. that is the very definition of it, as long as the majority benefits, or so long as the net gain is above 0, or maybe even above +2, utilitarianism alone cannot condemn an action.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I just walked into an ethics thread at

 

people in general have about 2-3 proper holes, that means 30-60/90 works out fine

 

Hah, holes!

 

but if we're going down this route I reckon I might as well contribute!

 

Even an especially slender male's anus can accommodate double anal penetration with triple anal penetration on a male being a possibility, so it's not unfair to assume at least a two-phalluses-to-one-ass ratio. A mouth can reasonably accommodate another two as well, meaning most males should be able to take four at once with their 2 "proper" orifices. Hands, fingers, thighs, armpits, and feet all present further openings for phalluses to be forced through, if not holes. If we were to assign, in addition to the four total phalluses forced into said male's mouth and anus, one phallus to each armpit, one to each hand, and one between the pads of his feet (the thighs would have to be outstretched to accommodate double anal), that should be within the realms of possible configuration. That would total to nine phalluses to one average male's openings, I think this is a fairly conservative estimate for what is possible, but certainly he could accommodate more than two.

 

(Then there's the particularly barbaric possibility of artificially creating more through gore, by which someone could potentially accommodate very many more phalluses, but I'd imagine this would be too gruesome an undertaking for all but the most psychopathic of people, and to have them in one place cooperate to that end shouldn't be possible).  

 

A woman does have a third orifice, and one capable of taking another two phalluses, but given the possible configurations of men required to do so I wouldn't imagine your average pack of men could accomplish both double vaginal and double anal penetration at once. That said, your average woman can accommodate three at once with either vagina or anus being double-penetrated and the other being penetrated, much more easily than a man could, so to allot an extra phallus there and another atwixt her breasts for a total of eleven should be readily possible.

 

The points I am trying to make here are that desperately trying to cram a phallus into an opening is the wrong way for a male to go about deriving happiness or even dopamine from sex, and that gangrape is a pretty ass-backwards Rube Goldberg way to generate net happiness that is more likely to generate net discomfort, shame, and incarcerations. 

 

 

The subjective nature of the human experience makes it difficult to objectively measure. Dopamine is a horrible measure, because the effect of it on individuals will indisputably vary and it's relative. I can't confirm this, but someone subject to constant dopamine would grow numb to it.

 

I utterly agree.

 

 

If happiness and life are the only things value in this world, which I feel you are trying to assert, the ultimate perfect world is one where we all live the rest of eternity in mindless ecstasy with some measure to prevent our minds from going numb to it. Not only that, but we would also seek to create as many organisms as possible to join us in eternal ecstasy maximizing the aggregate happiness in this world.

 

I feel like this wouldn't be such a bad thing for humanity to strive for, and that we could well be as close to what you're describing as we've ever been. 

[IQuitDolphin]

...I don't even knew what I just read in the first few paragraphs....

[Slinky]

..Did I just see Winter justify flat out slavery?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Did I just see Slinky blindly shitpost?

 

I'm not justifying anything actually. I'm saying it may be possible for slavery to be ethical if it were done right

 

The problem remains that so far, Slavery has been used to vastly benefit a minority and harm a majority. But it's not impossible to construe a situation where the reverse holds true. In which case it would be ethical, even if I personally would be disgusted by it.

 

Jesus slinky, a little bit of reading comprehension would go a long way for you

[Slinky]

There is nothing ethical about slavery in any way, shape, or form. Because slavery by definition is forced on someone. Forcing someone to throw away their dignity and work for you is unethical in its own right.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

There is nothing ethical about slavery in any way, shape, or form. Because slavery by definition is forced on someone. Forcing someone to throw away their dignity and work for you is unethical in its own right.

Do you even know what "ethical" means

 

Cause in utilitarian ethics, ie. what we're discussing, words like dignity really don't have much meaning 

 

If for some reason your comprehension was poor and you missed the obvious fact that we were talking about utilitarian ethics...you're still wrong...cause even the more robust definition of ethics is based on morals which vary from person to person. I could say slavery is unethical for me, you could agree, but at the end of the day it would only be unethical for you and me. Saying slavery itself is unethical would involve you proving that it never benefits the majority over the minority. 

 

Educate yourself

We call him knee-jerk Slinky for a reason.

Fitting

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Do you even know what "ethical" means

 

Cause in utilitarian ethics, ie. what we're discussing, words like dignity really don't have much meaning 

 

If for some reason your comprehension was poor and you missed the obvious fact that we were talking about utilitarian ethics...you're still wrong...cause even the more robust definition of ethics is based on morals which vary from person to person. I could say slavery is unethical for me, you could agree, but at the end of the day it would only be unethical for you and me. Saying slavery itself is unethical would involve you proving that it never benefits the majority over the minority. 

 

Educate yourself

Fitting

You can't "educate" yourself on ethics entirely because morals are a personal matter. Slinky's own principles say that it's wrong, so

 

There is nothing ethical about slavery in any way, shape, or form. Because slavery by definition is forced on someone. Forcing someone to throw away their dignity and work for you is unethical in its own right.

This is a perfectly logical post to make.

 

Slinky is being fairly reasonable so far yet you have to insult him to prove your point? (And unlike Dolphin his post at least had to do with the topic so it's funny you called it a shitpost while agreeing with Dolphin's)

How about this, you keep saying "if done right" so, tell me, what do you think would be the right way to do it? (I'm honestly asking)

[~~~~]

But the situation of a majority rapist / minority victim society (not that those groups would be well defined as the rapists would surely turn on their own) can be sorted out with more net utility than simply letting widespread rape go ahead. (!!Simulated!!) rape porn, castration (either with a knife or drugs), sex robots that may be 'raped' but are not sentient, etc would all produce a larger net utility than either a society full of rape or a society full of beings who need to rape to gain any satisfaction from their existence (eg men) not being satisfied. (Although in that dichotomy I would allow the rapists to be unsatisfied, as dissatisfaction, however widespread, pales in comparison to the absolute horror of being raped.)

 

People will often try to think of the most most twisted and unlikely to scenarios to 'test' utilitarianism. These scenarios almost invariably consist of a strict dichotomy. In the real world, it is often possible to take a third option which would have much more utility attached to it than either of the lousy options often presented in these dichotomies.

 

Utilitarianism is an ethical system for the real world, not just for theoretical crapsack worlds where decision making is more limited and linear than Exodia FTK.

 

No Winter - slavery cannot be justified (in the real world) under utilitarianism. There are limits on the amount of work a human can physically do, and therefore limits on the amount of good a human slave can produce. This good is extremely unlikely to outweigh the amount of suffering endured by the slave. And this isn't even comparing it to other options (such as getting those same workers to work under better conditions), which only further damns slavery as a wholly unethical practice. My reasoning is as follows:

• Time on the Cross - a book arguing for slavery as an economically viable practice estimates slave workers as being a third more efficient than free workers. Now I have made it clear that I know nothing of economics so I will not dispute this. However, with only a +33% efficiency over the much kinder option of free work, slavery is certainly not an ethically viable practice.

Thank you for reading.

[IQuitDolphin]

You can't "educate" yourself on ethics entirely because morals are a personal matter. Slinky's own principles say that it's wrong, so

 

This is a perfectly logical post to make.

 

Slinky is being fairly reasonable so far yet you have to insult him to prove your point? (And unlike Dolphin his post at least had to do with the topic so it's funny you called it a shitpost while agreeing with Dolphin's)

How about this, you keep saying "if done right" so, tell me, what do you think would be the right way to do it? (I'm honestly asking)

He is being reasonable, but we are taking about slavery under the context of a utilitarian system. Such morals that he speaks of would not exist because under the system it would be moral. He is bringing in information outside of context to make a statement that has nothing to do with our discussion.

 

Apparently my keyboard swipes morals as meals.

 

And it is much more beneficial to consider morals to transcend human opinion than be ever-changing.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You can't "educate" yourself on ethics entirely because morals are a personal matter. Slinky's own principles say that it's wrong, so

 

This is a perfectly logical post to make.

 

Slinky is being fairly reasonable so far yet you have to insult him to prove your point? (And unlike Dolphin his post at least had to do with the topic so it's funny you called it a shitpost while agreeing with Dolphin's)

How about this, you keep saying "if done right" so, tell me, what do you think would be the right way to do it? (I'm honestly asking)

Dolphin's post was a reference to a time when Slinky made an ass out of himself in TCG. I agreed with it cause I was involved in that thread and had a laugh

 

My post was in response to Dyson sarcastically asking if I justified Slavery, when I said nothing of the kind. He needs to educate himself in the art of reading comprehension before going around slandering people. As I said before, we were talking about a utilitarian system where "morals" don't exist to make room for more universal objective messures

[IQuitDolphin]

Disregard. Duck phones

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You can't "educate" yourself on ethics entirely because morals are a personal matter. Slinky's own principles say that it's wrong, so

 

This is a perfectly logical post to make.

 

Slinky is being fairly reasonable so far yet you have to insult him to prove your point? (And unlike Dolphin his post at least had to do with the topic so it's funny you called it a shitpost while agreeing with Dolphin's)

How about this, you keep saying "if done right" so, tell me, what do you think would be the right way to do it? (I'm honestly asking)

Dolphin's post was a reference to a time when Slinky made an ass out of himself in TCG. I agreed with it cause I was involved in that thread and had a laugh

 

My post was in response to Dyson sarcastically asking if I justified Slavery, when I said nothing of the kind. He needs to educate himself in the art of reading comprehension before going around slandering people

 

But the situation of a majority rapist / minority victim society (not that those groups would be well defined as the rapists would surely turn on their own) can be sorted out with more net utility than simply letting widespread rape go ahead. (!!Simulated!!) rape porn, castration (either with a knife or drugs), sex robots that may be 'raped' but are not sentient, etc would all produce a larger net utility than either a society full of rape or a society full of beings who need to rape to gain any satisfaction from their existence (eg men) not being satisfied. (Although in that dichotomy I would allow the rapists to be unsatisfied, as dissatisfaction, however widespread, pales in comparison to the absolute horror of being raped.)

 

People will often try to think of the most most twisted and unlikely to scenarios to 'test' utilitarianism. These scenarios almost invariably consist of a strict dichotomy. In the real world, it is often possible to take a third option which would have much more utility attached to it than either of the lousy options often presented in these dichotomies.

 

Utilitarianism is an ethical system for the real world, not just for theoretical crapsack worlds where decision making is more limited and linear than Exodia FTK.

 

No Winter - slavery cannot be justified (in the real world) under utilitarianism. There are limits on the amount of work a human can physically do, and therefore limits on the amount of good a human slave can produce. This good is extremely unlikely to outweigh the amount of suffering endured by the slave. And this isn't even comparing it to other options (such as getting those same workers to work under better conditions), which only further damns slavery as a wholly unethical practice. My reasoning is as follows:

• Time on the Cross - a book arguing for slavery as an economically viable practice estimates slave workers as being a third more efficient than free workers. Now I have made it clear that I know nothing of economics so I will not dispute this. However, with only a +33% efficiency over the much kinder option of free work, slavery is certainly not an ethically viable practice.

Thank you for reading.

All I was trying to say Speed was that if there was a situation where slavery somehow managed to meet the criteria, then it would be ethical under a utilitarian model. And I do think I admitted it here or in the other thread that I rather doubted this would be the case. Regardless, good post