Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
I think what is unacceptable is claiming the professor is more blameworthy than the killer, or that he is a worse person than the killer. I don't think those intuitions are in contention with utilitarianism. I don't have fully formed theory of permissibility, but I'm sympathetic to sentimentalist accounts.
More broadly for killing/letting die: Someone dying is equally bad regardless of whether they were killed or let die, but this doesn't mean someone has equal reason to save vs not kill, nor does it mean these actions are necessarily just as blameworthy.
As for the professor/killer, I think you have reasons to do good things, and even stronger reasons to do better things. Utilitarianism can tell you what you have reason to do and what you have most reason to do. The professor has reason to save 10, but has most reason to change jobs and save 40 a year. He's choosing to do something good, he just isn't achieving perfection, something no one does. The killer, on the other hand, is not acting in accordance with any moral reasons, he's going against them.
You might be able to do comparisons like -30 vs -20 to determine preferable world states, but to say who is acting worse you would be comparing competing reasons.
For instance, the killing/letting die distinction. Imagine you have an intellectual who works as a professor, and he is wise enough to donate some of his income to charity, saving 10 human lives a year. However, he could get a high-paying job for some firm and save 40 lives a year instead.
Now, imagine you have a guy with no skills to meaningfully improve net well-being, but he's really good at killing people. He kills 20 people a year, and makes it look like natural causes so there's no mass hysteria.
On utilitarianism, professor is a -30, whereas the killer is -20, so the professor would be acting worse in this situation. I personally find endorsing this to be unacceptable.