dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/14/83)
Sorry, I got cut off during my last message. Consider this a continuation
of "utilitarianism clarified". Back to Tom Craver:
You justify using summation by stating "there are no inherent and
ethically significant differences between an agent himself and others".
I am assuming that you mean *the sum of all others* (as would be
implied by your use of summation good as the basis of moral action).
There *are* significant differences, from each individual's point of
view.
If it is not already clear from what I said in "utilitarianism clarified" --
I meant between the agent and any (or, each) other person. Why are the
differences you point to ethically significant ones? I.e., why do those
differences justify an individual as treating his own welfare as more
important (on a fundamental level) that that of another? Saying "every
person's life is their own to live" seems to be a different way of saying
"each person's welfare is her own welfare" -- which of course justifies
nothing.
...you are now claiming that the claim for utilitarianism
being based on living all lives is *my* argument. *You* were the one
to supply that.
NO. There was NO claim that utilitarianism is *BASED* on living all lives.
That was no *argument*, it was an attempt to explain to you what actions a
utilitarian would perform. "Claim", "based", "argument" -- these are all
your *mis*interpretations. The sentence about "living all lives" was
designed to help *you* (who understand selfish behavior best) to predict the
actions of a utilitarian. Sorry that that was unclear.
Why would you want to *predict* the actions of a utilitarian? So that you
can argue with me by saying "Look, a utilitarian would do so-and-so, and
so-and-so is ridiculous," and not have me correct you about what a
utilitarian would do.
--Paul Torek, U of MD College Park