Sunday, October 13, 2013
week of Oct 14: Utilitarianism tells us to maximize net happiness. Arguably, this might imply that we should frame one innocent man to prevent riots that would be highly likely to kill hundreds, including children. Would you be willing to frame an innocent man for a crime in order to prevent riots and spare lives that would be lost in the riots? Why or why not? Do you really think such a framing would even maximize total happiness, everyone's happiness considered?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this is a loaded question. Obviously it is impossible to make both parties happy, so one side will have to suffer. I feel that it is in the best interest of the public to let the innocent man suffer if it's going to save countless lives due to riots, but what about the poor man? On the other hand, it is in the best interest of the man to set him free when he has obviously done nothing wrong. I feel that framing is extremely wrong though because it would be against our basic human morals to keep a man in custody even when we know that he shouldn't be kept. As far as maximizing total happiness, yes, because the majority of the people would be happy that the man is where they think he needs to be. Obviously it doesn't maximize EVERYONES happiness though, because the man will suffer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you kirsten and I too believe it to be impossible for each of us to be fully, truly happy. I don't think it's right to let one man suffer, but I don't think it is right for millions to suffer either. We are somehow all victims of wrong doing, yet we are all innocent, so it would be wrong to kill many or just one in a riot. The poor man did nothing to deserve to be killed but so has everyone. Is killing one person make it right to murder if it means to spare everyone else's life? Surely not. It does go against our basic human morals to frame someone and keep them in custody. But let me ask you this: What if the poor man really not innocent. Would it mean the act of murder in the end justify the means? If I spare an innocent man's life, he is happy, if I kill many, their families will be unhappy. It seems there is no right answer and no right consequence here either. There may be temporary peace in knowing that the man is held captive no longer committing bad deeds, however, there is always going to be evil: Hitler, Stalin, and Mousilini were all evil, yet they were all victims of their society also. One or many will indelably suffer, it is a fact of life.
DeleteI agree no matter what everyone won't be happy. Look at the innocent man's family and friends they definitely won't be happy. Not to mention the other party won't be happy with just one death anyways. I really like how you brought up the fact that we are all guilty of some kind of crime because we all have been perfect our entire lives. Either way it will still be a lose - lose situation. Evil is inevitable in this world.
DeleteYes, I agree. It is tough to decipher what the best option is if you look at the whole picture. More people will be effected positively than negatively if you do put the innocent man's life at stake. However, like you said it won't help everyone's happiness and in the end it will erase the innocent man's life.
DeleteI personally don't agree with framing an innocent man to save hundreds because it isn't right. It would suck to be that innocent person paying for a crime you didn't commit. Utilitarianism tells us to maximize net happiness so in that case it makes sense because hundreds would be saved from riots, including children. So more people would live happy riot free lives while the innocent person suffers for something they didn't do. I also see more people suffering from this because of guilt. I see both sides. I wouldn't want to be framed and take the blame for something I didn't do, but by framing the innocent man you save hundreds of lives. It sounds good, but when you look at the whole picture it isn't worth it I don't think.
ReplyDeleteKWheeler, I also believe it would be wrong to frame an innocent man, for he is innocent and this is wrong, but what about everybody else's lives? Are they not innocent? Are they sinners? We all sin and it is the enevitable components of life. There will always be good and there will always be evil. Everyone is a victim, everyone is good, everyone is bad. It is the yin and the yang of the delable fact of life. Yet are we innocent? Obviously not, if we are born sinners. It is not write to frame someone for an evil doing he or she did not commit, and that is wrong in the process. But not doing anything about it, is just as wrong as the act itself. If everyone suffered for something they would not commit such acts, there is a word for it: guilt. If everyone hadn't suffered they wouldn't learn the consequences for their actions and would continue to do as much evil as they would choose. Is this true happiness when people are accused of a wrongful act that they did not commit? Not so, yet suffering seems to be a part of life, but so is happiness.
DeleteWhat about their lives? I wouldn't throw one under the bus to save hundreds. Total happiness wouldn't be maximized because you wouldn't feel happy for framing that innocent person. The guilt would eat everyone alive. You will be stuck with the thought of it for the rest of your life. I understand it would save hundreds of lives, but its for the wrong reason. People only grow stronger for sticking up for what is right. I think total happiness comes from believing in the right way and right choices, even if people die for it. What if that innocent person was you? Your life taken from you for something you didn't do. Is it worth it? Are you happy?
DeleteI sure that the person getting framed would not be happy but killing hundreds of people for one person mistake. I feel that if we tell the world that they found the person who did the crime just so there wouldn't be a riot would be just as well. They could tell the world that they found the person and just keep looking for the real person.
DeleteI completely agree with your post and liked how you worded it! Of course it would be in the best interest of the population as a whole to frame the innocent man. This would be beneficial because then a multitude of people would be happy instead of being in a huge riot and thousands of lives being lost. BUT I don't think it's fair for that one innocent man. And honestly, the chances are that he has loved ones are people that are close to him that would fight for the innocent man and raise some riots and protests themselves. There is no perfect answer to the problem.
DeleteSomebody gets hurt no matter what, no win win. Happiness isn't maximized.
ReplyDeleteI think maybe it means happiness is maximized as a whole for the entire community. If happiness was maximized for everyone wed have world peace and no suffering, starvation, or disease.
DeleteIf utilitarianism tells us we should maximize happiness, then the whole world would be a better place to live. We know this to be a utopian view of society and is a very cliche and impossible to achieve. No one really wins in the end. There are characteristics of each culture that may appeal to some, yet some people critizes others. No culture is perfect or universal and we must accept this. This reminds me of the ethical principle that in order to do what is right, to have a good outcome, we must do something in the process if it's for the greater good of the community. So killing one man to spare a whole sleuth of people may sound appealing if everyone else's life was spared. I don't think this is real happiness, although it does seem satisfying at first, yet nobody ends up winning. A sin is a sin, no matter the degree, killing just one person is wrong and shouldn't be committed under the Commandments. Nobody wins, there is always going to be evil in the world, but there will always be good too. I believe infanticide is wrong, because they are too young and like FGM, they can not decide to live themselves, they are forced. Like the man who was killed, children are innocent and they wouldn't choose to be killed, for they are innocent. And for that, happiness is not achieved, for every action has an undesirable outcome, for everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteIt really depends on the scenario. I feel like if this man is for instances a serial killer and we are killing him to save more then yes. However, when it comes to things like maybe a riot about something that needs to be changed. Killing the man won't do much in the long run. The problem would still be there and the riots would eventually come again. It's just that the killing would prolong it. Generally in cases of like riots for instance people are doing that because they want something to happen. If they get killed for what they want who are we to say that we should prevent that.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your point on the different scenarios. I didn't even think about serial killers. I also agree with the fact about it not doing much in the long run to kill one man. If a group of people are mad about something one man will not satisfy them for long. Killing innocent people in general is just morally wrong, No one should ever enforce it.
DeleteI wasn't thinking about serial killers either for this one. Obviously every single scenario is going to be different and if we happened across one I'm sure I would have my doubts. I don't think I would be again sacrificing one person for the greater good in some situations but like I said in my post, it would weight heavily on those deciding for the rest of their lives no matter how strong their resolve. And I don't think that wouldn't allow them to achieve maximum happiness.
DeleteNo matter what, both sides are not going to be happy. If an innocent person if framed and charged for something they didn't do, they'll be miserable the rest of their lives. If no one is charged for a serious crime, society won't be happy. It may be better for everyone else to be happy compared to one person but I don't agree with having someone wrongly accused. The real criminal will still be out there and probably still commit the crime causing more riots and people would still look for someone else to blame. The happiness will never be constant.
ReplyDeleteI agree that both sides wouldn't be happy. It would just prolong whatever was going to happen. It depends on the scenario like I said in my comment.
DeleteUtilitarianism tells us to maximize net happiness. Arguably, this might imply that we should frame one innocent man to prevent riots that would be highly likely to kill hundreds, including children. Would you be willing to frame an innocent man for a crime in order to prevent riots and spare lives that would be lost in the riots? Why or why not? Do you really think such a framing would even maximize total happiness, everyone's happiness considered?
ReplyDeleteHonestly no, I do not think that people should frame an innocent man. A man is only as good as his word. We can not jeopardize a man's innocence, and word even if it is for a better cause. We need to ensure that the riot situation is handled ethically and morally right. There are another ways to amend a problem that do not use the tactics of lies and deceit. Maybe the riot is for a good cause, there are far too many questions to be asked before we can start wrongly incriminating innocent victims. I think of myself as an honest man and I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I just pushed the blame on someone else. Lives are important, but there is always a reason for such mayhem. The problem obviously isn't a problem that should be swept under the rug. We need to take actions before a riot starts.
Everyone has different happiness. It is impossible to make everyone happy. A riot might make some people very happy. There are people in this world that get off on making other people's lives hell. Not everyone can be satisfied. In some cases a riot is the only to change things. Total mayhem gets a lot of people's attention (outside nations). Mayhem might be the only way to stop whatever is going on.
I like they way you stated that it is impossible to make everyone happy because that is true. Even in the case presented here, you may think that you are making everyone happy by framing this person when in reality that could actually not be the case. A certain group may be happy as a result of framing an innocent person but odds are there will be another group that will not be happy.
DeleteI love your post, and I couldn't agree with you more. Framing someone who is innocent is, in my opinion, just plain wrong and immoral. I do not believe in taking the easy way out, which is what I think framing someone basically is. I would analyze the situation and come up with a better way to deal with things. Framing someone wouldn't make everyone happy. It's just like you said: different things make people happy, and it is impossible to make everyone happy.
DeleteNo matter what the consequences, an innocent person should never be framed for a crime. Everyone wouldn't be happy. What about the persons family and friends? They wouldn't be happy. In some ways it kinda seems to make sense to prevent other innocent deaths but would you want to be that innocent person who lost your life for no reason. Not to mention one death will not prevent the rest of them either if it is something that serious.
ReplyDeleteThat's right Melissa the innocent man souldnt be. You make a really good point about the family I never really thought about the family when I was doing mine. but innocent people die for someones wrong is not right. I dot no its just not a right situation.
DeleteI like your view on this. It won't just affect one man it would affect everyone that knows him or is related to him. If the riot situation is that serious then there is obviously a problem that needs to be taken care of. Sometimes mayhem is the only way for serious problems to be stopped. Honestly the riot could potentially be the best for the situation. If it is a serious problem then we should not just sweep it under the rug (framing an innocent man).
DeleteThis is a very hard question.. I would have to say I would so that all the inncont man. The reason why is so that people wouldn't die and kids could live a life that they all deserve to live. I would feel really bad but if one mans life was hurt so that million others would be saved Im sure that deep down he would be ok with it. It will never make everyone happy. there will never be a place in time were it will make everyone happy but im sure they would be more happy knowing that they have a life and they didn't die.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a hard question, there is no right answer. Framing the man would be easier, but it wouldn't be fair to him. It would almost be easier to sacrifice yourself then framing someone else. Plus who is to say that killing the person taking the blame would make a difference? Would everyone be happy after the person was killed?
DeleteI don't think I could frame an innocent man even if it were to save hundreds of others if I did. I feel like if I'm trying to save lives, why would I sacrifice one? That would make you fail in a way. Even though it's just one person, it's still going against what you want to do.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. It is extremely difficult to have that on your conscious and I understand why you feel that way. I just don't know what I would do, I might even take the fall if I could. However, that wasn't the question if I would take the fall for thousands of lives. I wonder if he knew what he stopped than he would be okay but thats a tough mindset to have when you are already framed.
DeleteI remember hearing a story growing up about a bridge operator that was one day forced with the decision to lower the bridge while his child was playing down there. If he would not have lowered the bridge then hundreds of people on the train would have died, but in doing so he had to sacrifice his child. I think that situation is a lot tougher and I know that I could never sacrifice my child no matter how many lives it saves.
DeleteWhile I can see the benefits of framing this man, I also couldn't do it. It's a personal thing, it's the same reason I wouldn't be able to kill baby Hitler if I had the chance. I just feel like doing an evil deed to prevent a greater evil from occurring would defeat the purpose.
ReplyDeleteBut at the same time, a great man by the name of Spock once said, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one". So I don't know who can argue with a Vulcan's logic, it just depends on your perspective I guess. On a personal level though, I wouldn't have an answer unless it was actually happening and it was ultimately my decision to frame the man.
I feel like you wouldn't be comfortable with the baby Hitler scenario for a lot of reasons; some sort of "Butterfly Effect", killing an infant, or even the possibility that he might not turn out the way he did in our reality. But let's say that we were to live in this world where the happiness of many must come before the happiness of the few in order to maintain a sort of homeostasis for society. Do you think that you could do it then? Or would you still refuse? Do you think it could partially be that the Nazi Regime was essential for the world to progress as it has and if it wasn't Adolf Hitler then it would have been someone else?
DeleteI couldn’t frame an innocent person for a crime that he/she didn’t commit to save 1 or a million. Utilitarianism as defined an ethical principle according to which an action is right if it tends to maximize happiness, not only that of the agent but also of everyone affected. Thus, utilitarians focus on the consequences of an act rather than on its intrinsic nature or the motives of the agent. My thing is that if this act produces happiness then where would the guilt of this act fall into, because I wouldn’t be happy but just feel guilt and remorse of the act of what I had done by framing an innocent person. Therefore everyone’s happiness wouldn’t be maximized. The lesser of two evils doesn't fly with me.
ReplyDeleteI also do not like the idea of going with the lesser of two evils. Framing an innocent person for the greater good of everyone else will not maximize happiness. I feel guilt and remorse would come into play in this situation.
DeleteAgreed Becca, the lesser of the two evils. Either way its a lose-lose situation because in one case many will die but in the other an innocent man is blamed and you have to live with that guilt. But does the fact that you saved so many lives help one feel better with that decision? That is what makes this example and situation such a tough one, and on such an individual thought and feeling basis.
DeleteI wouldn't be comfortable framing one person for a crime in which they didn't commit. Even if it were to save the lives of more people if we frame the innocent person I don't think it would be worth it. I think it has a lot to do with morals and it would depend on the person and whether or not it would maximize happiness. I feel like with most people it would minimize happiness because many peoples morals would be against framing an innocent person. It may maximize happiness for a short amount of time but once people realize what they did they will feel guilty about what they did.
ReplyDeleteThis is very true but what about the other innocent people being hurt as well. So what is worse, the one innocent person or the many innocent people going to be hurt? It is a tough decision and it is one that nobody would ever want to make.
DeleteI don't think that I, in good conscience, could frame an innocent man for a crime even knowing it would prevent riots. I would attempt to find another solution to the problem that is causing the riots. I personally know that I could not live with with guilt of framing an innocent just because I couldn't find a better solution. As far maximizing everyone's happiness by framing someone I think that would depend on the situation. If the person that I am framing is the leader of the riots then happiness won't be maximized, it would only serve to aggravate the situation. If a gruesome murder occurred and the people are rioting because they demand justice, then framing someone might serve to improve happiness. However, suppose you do frame an innocent person and it was later discovered what you had done, I imagine those people that were rioting in the first place would be outraged that an innocent man was framed. Either way, framing an innocent person, to me, seems like just an escape route; a quick fix to a greater problem.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same as you. I think it would be better to find a different solution. I would not being able to live with myself either. If this person were being framed as a murderer and there were riots for justice, the happiness would end once the real criminal started murdering again. Then there could be riots for the innocent man being framed and a real criminal still free.
DeleteI wouldn't be able to frame an innocent man either. I would try as hard as I possibly could to find an alternate solution. I think that there is a better solution to every situation, even if you have to think on it for a while. I also agree that framing an innocent person is an easy way out. Quick fixes don't always work and I think it is better to come up with a long-term solution that spares the innocent person and effectively ends the rioting.
DeleteI would not be able to frame an innocent person, even if it would save thousands of lives. Just knowing that someone who didn't do anything to deserve being framed gets thrown in jail or put on death row wouldn't sit at all with me. I do not believe that innocent people should suffer for the lives of others, no matter what the benefits of framing that innocent person would possibly bring. I would love to be able to put a stop to riots and mass murder and save lives, but it's not in my nature to have an innocent person take the fall. I also don't think that framing anyone would maximize total happiness. Everyone has different things that make them happy. For some people, having lots of money makes them happy, for others it's their family that makes them happy, and there are people who are happy just having the barest essentials. Though stopping a riot would make a lot of people happy, they would eventually find something else that makes them unhappy. And if people found out that an innocent person suffered I think they would be outraged, and would probably start rioting again. It is impossible to make everyone happy.
ReplyDeleteI would completely understand if someone would have the guts to frame an innocent person, however I couldn't do it. On the other hand, since thousands would die I wouldn't be able to live with that either. I would be stuck in a predicament but, I would more than likely not do it. No, I don't think everyones happiness will be considered because there will be an innocent man who has to endure something he wasn't even part of. I think that it would almost maximize happiness due to the fact that other people wouldn't riot.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a predicament because its choosing the greater of two evils. It also makes you think that would you feel bad for having the blood of all those people on your conscience because you didn't do something about it.
DeleteThis is a tough question. But for me it comes down to if I blame the innocent man and save all those lives, only the innocent man suffers, just one man. But, if I don't and the riot kills many people, more than just one person will suffer. So as much as I may find it morally wrong to put the blame on an innocent man, I would because it would limit the amount of suffering. As for maxismising happiness, I dont know if I would be doing that as much as limiting the amount of suffering. I guess more people will be happy because they werent killed in a riot, but the innocent man will suffer greatly and so will I knowing that I put the blame on him. The whole thing is kind of a lose-lose situation, just a matter of what a person is morally willing to do or allow to happen.
ReplyDeleteI agree no one really wins in either situation. I'm with you that blaming one person would save more lives but I don't know if I could live with that guilt. I'd be glad that many people got to live but there would be no maximized happiness achieved in a mass killing or an innocent man framed. Some one in this blog mentioned that a man could volunteer himself. (unfortunately suicide bombers popped into my mind.) A situation such as a sacrifice in this case might be the "best" option. It would save multiple lives and no one would have to frame an innocent man because that person was brave enough to offer himself. However most likely its just as you put it, its a lose-lose situation.
Deletethats where i was struggling too. If i knew blaming the man would save all those lives i could do it and overall maximize happiness for those that lived. But as for the man he would suffer from being the scapegoat and i would suffer because i would have to live the guilt of knowing that i blamed an innocent man, although i could try to balance the guilt out with the fact that I saved so many other innocent lives but sometimes one bad thing out weighs a lot of good things or in the case can weigh just as much. tough decision.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDifferent things make people happy. It is impossible to make everyone happy in a situation. A riot is sometimes for the better. A corrupt government or something like that sometimes needs to be taken out of power. Being deceitful and lying isn't a moral way of handling a situation. First you need to find out why the people are rioting then we must agree on a compromise. I think everything can be handled in a give and take setting. I would also feel guilty if I framed an innocent man. Even though I saved many lives that one man would still be affected and his would change drastically for the worse.
DeleteI feel like a lot of this is circumstantial. How innocent is this man? what crime is he possibly being framed for? and what is the reason the people would riot if the man was not framed? I could not knowingly frame an innocent man of a crime he did not commit. Framing an innocent could not possibly maximize total happiness if everyone's happiness is considered. The man would have to suffer knowing he's innocent. His friends, family, and loved ones would not be happy, and I could not be happy knowing a ruined an innocent mans chance at a future.I have too big of a guilty conscious. Even if the innocent man was framed, how long would everyone else's happiness continue? There's a spark inside these people, and putting away an innocent man will not put out that spark. It may contain it for the time being, but that spark is still burning and will eventually go up in flames and the riots would happen eventually, especially for the loved ones of the innocent man who are not happy themselves. They could start a riot. In the end, I think It would be inevitable, but i still could not knowing convict an innocent man.
ReplyDeleteOk, I'm going to come up with a random name and crime of someone who should be framed to prevent riots. Let's go with George for a first name, and hmm.. Zimmerman sounds like a last name to stand by. Now what should his crime be? I think something really vile like killing a black kid and claiming self defense. I wonder what would happen if he got off? Would there be riots if got off, even if he were innocent, would it matter in the eyes of the people?
DeleteI believe that for every morally right / wrong decision that we make in our lives, we make another decision simultaneously and subconsciously; which is more beneficial? If everybody was following the same path of only acting on what is morally right, then we would have a perfect world with no need to make hard choices. Unfortunately for us the world does not follow that path, everywhere we look bad things are happening to good people and it is out of everyone's power. There needs to be balance in the world, and this counterweight comes in the form of people making tough decisions. Even when they are betraying their moral compass and possibly hating themselves for it, occasionally it is necessary for people to make a decision in order to benefit the people as a whole. As far as framing an innocent man goes, yes I would if it was going to save the lives of large amounts of people. Who's to say that the government can't just make it appear that he was locked in jail and set him free after the public was pleased? I'm not a fan of the government lying to me and acting in secrecy, however if they weren't then the country couldn't function properly. Ignorance is bliss, and I believe the majority of citizens are not intelligent enough to see the picture as a whole. If everybody was worried about what goes on behind the scenes they would not be able to focus on the important aspects of their lives: family, work, religion etc.
ReplyDeletePS: Batman framed himself for killing Harvey when he was innocent in order to keep peace in the city
As far as Batman goes framing yourself is different than framing another person. Willing sacrificing is completely different than sacrificing another. If the public then got wind of the fact that an innocent was framed would that not cause greater riots and potentially a greater amount of death? In my eyes you would just be perpetuating the problem and not really solving anything. Framing someone would be a "quick fix" and nothing more.
DeleteThere is no right or wrong answer to this question. I feel that whether you convict an innocent man or let several people die either way would feel horrible and morally wrong. If you let the man go on his way due to his innocence and because its the right thing to do many people including children will suffer in death. However if you let the several people live with their freedom then the innocent man will be wrongfully convicted and his freedom stripped when he did nothing to deserve such treatment. I don't think happiness would be achieved. Whether the innocent man kept his freedom or the people got to live, each would probably be greatful for their freedom and happy to be alive. I get one might say many lives are more important then just one but if I were the one making that decision I don't know what I would do I can't imagine framing an innocent man or putting several lives in danger of death.
ReplyDeleteI really do understand you viewpoint and think that it makes sense. Basically, if people have a reason to complain about something, they will complain. We are humans. Nothing or no person is perfect, and we will let the people around us know if something is irking us (usually). If there is a reason for a riot, then people will riot about it and make their voice heard instead of simply biting their tongue. However, the question is referring to framing an innocent man; accusing a man that has done no wrong whatsoever. He is not a serial killer, and he has broken no laws. He is being framed simply in order to keep other people happy and make them shut up. I personally do not agree with this and believe it is not only wrong from the criminal justice standpoint, but also the basic human morals standpoint. How have you felt when you were blamed for doing something you didn't do? Even if it was something simple like taking the last cookie from the cookie jar or taking a twenty dollar bill out of your parents' wallet because they had less than they thought? I am an extremely honest person, and when people accuse me of doing wrongful things it offends me and hurts to know that someone would "frame" me, and that's just on a much less extreme level. Could you imagine going to jail and spending the rest of your life there for doing nothing wrong just to make the public happy. Just something to think about! Good post though!
ReplyDeleteThe only instance I can think of that I would support taking the life of one innocent person to save others would be if the innocent person volunteered. If someone were to try and take another life to save their own is extremely cowardly. Most people wouldn't be able to live with themselves because of their guilt and shame. I also think it's a cop out because everyone has a family and you're taking away from that. Either way people will suffer so their happiness isn't something that would be maximized.
ReplyDeleteBut what about in the scenario of a serial killer? We are killing him to save the lives of the people that he may murder? In that scenario would that be okay? He didn't volunteer, but it would be killing one person to save others.
DeleteI feel like there are two ways to look at this:
ReplyDelete1) The only people who know the man is being framed are the innocent man and the person doing the framing. By framing this man, I feel that the populous would have a maximized happiness, because they wouldn't know what would of happened if this man wasn't framed, and because I could rationalize/justify that the action needed to be taken to save hundreds of lives.
2) More people would know the truth about the framing. In this instance I feel like its a lose-lose situation no matter what action is taken, because if you frame the man, more people will know, and wont feel happy because they have falsely convicted a person; but if you don't frame the man, there will be hundreds of deaths that could have been prevented, and the people wouldn't feel happy having their blood on their hands.
Yea I agree with you splitting up the situation and looking from different views is the most effective way to analyze it. When it comes to making tough decisions we need to take a step back and view the situation from the beneficial standpoint without letting emotions get in the way.
DeleteIn my opinion, there are two things that we should view in this example, first , if the question is to know whether there is benefit from framing this man, of course there is exist, in terms of the quantity, which is how many people are saved from framing this man. However, this violates the norms of justice that any mankind should not be sacrificed for the sake of other mankind, and also the general norm in society, do not kill, because it will leave a negative impression. Second, although there is definitely benefit in some part of this quantity, but there is a side that looked not ignored. As if, in the affairs of humanity collapsible the benefit and loss. I think whatever the reason even if it involves the safety of many people, violence against individuals can not be justified for violating human rights and human dignity. If you think that taking into account the quantity or number of utilitarianism more in priority to the exclusion of dignity and human rights, it is the morality in this case for the calculation of benefit and loss. And with the sacrifice of men, innocent men, and even then it is not necessarily indicate a possible to rescue many people from such actions.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that I would not frame an innocent man, but its hard to imagine more innocent people being killed because of it. It wouldn't be fair to the man that was being blamed but I don't think I could watch hundreds of people kill each other because of something they didn't agree with. Even if I did blame an innocent man, there would be no way I could know that it would prevent people from rioting. I would hope that it would, and if it didn't than the man's life was taken for no reason. Which in any case, who's to say everyone has the same happiness or it is just thought to be that way. People don't all think the same so how can happiness to one person be happiness to another person.
ReplyDelete