Because deontology says the act of causing harm should be inherently bad, but utilitarianism says you should do what creates the most good.
I can’t side with utilitarianism for the example of killing a healthy person to harvest organs for multiple dying patients. For the powerful who gladly profit off of the suffering of millions and the destruction of our environment… it’s harder to say utilitarianism feels wrong.
I don’t remember where exactly, but I’ve encountered an hybrid approach that balances utilitarianism with deontology. It goes something like this:
Generally do what brings the most utility. But…
People have “deontological protections” - basic human rights that you are not allowed to infringe upon even if it is for the greater good. But…
One’s deontological protections can be bypassed if said “greater good” is solving a mess they are responsible for.
Take, for example, the case of a mass shooter. Utilitarianism says you are allowed to take them down if that’s the only way to save their victims. Naive deontology says you are not allowed to kill whatsoever. The approach I’ve just presented says that we can go with utilitarianism in this case - but only because the shooter is one responsible for this mess so it’s okay to harm them for the greater good.
Note that it does not say it’s okay to kill them otherwise. If you manage to capture them, an other lives are no longer in risk, both deontology and utilitarianism will agree you are not allowed to kill them.
Let’s go back to the classic Trolley Problem. Is the person tied to the second track responsible for the situation? No - they are a victim. They are not stripped from their deontological protection, and therefore you are not allowed to sacrifice them in order to save the other five.
Back to the case in hand. We need to ask the following questions:
Does the suffering of the employees outweigh the life of the CEO?
Does the death of the CEO stop the suffering of the employees?
Is the CEO responsible for the suffering of the employees?
If the answer to all three questions is “yes” - then what’s the problem?
What about decreasing the harm of the employees by suing him or reporting him to the state labor board or even just kicking his ass or any combination thereof. The above seems overly simplistic.
My stance on that example is that it is consistent with utilitarianism to not harvest healthy people because the mere act of doing so causes harm to all the other healthy people that weren’t harvested in the for of fear that they could be at some later point down the line.
Screw utilitarianism. At this point it’s fucking self defence. Either those parasites stop existing, or everyone will. They’re dead anyway, might as well save everyone else.
In recent years we have become increasingly familiar with the thought of death. We ourselves are surprised by the composure with which we accept the news of the death of our contemporaries. We can no longer hate Death so much; we have discovered something of kindness in his features and are almost reconciled to him.
I’m not… Sad. Normally I should be sad. I feel like humanity offers less and less. I cheered Luigi, and now I’m like “yeah, I get it” … wtf
Because deontology says the act of causing harm should be inherently bad, but utilitarianism says you should do what creates the most good.
I can’t side with utilitarianism for the example of killing a healthy person to harvest organs for multiple dying patients. For the powerful who gladly profit off of the suffering of millions and the destruction of our environment… it’s harder to say utilitarianism feels wrong.
I don’t remember where exactly, but I’ve encountered an hybrid approach that balances utilitarianism with deontology. It goes something like this:
Take, for example, the case of a mass shooter. Utilitarianism says you are allowed to take them down if that’s the only way to save their victims. Naive deontology says you are not allowed to kill whatsoever. The approach I’ve just presented says that we can go with utilitarianism in this case - but only because the shooter is one responsible for this mess so it’s okay to harm them for the greater good.
Note that it does not say it’s okay to kill them otherwise. If you manage to capture them, an other lives are no longer in risk, both deontology and utilitarianism will agree you are not allowed to kill them.
Let’s go back to the classic Trolley Problem. Is the person tied to the second track responsible for the situation? No - they are a victim. They are not stripped from their deontological protection, and therefore you are not allowed to sacrifice them in order to save the other five.
Back to the case in hand. We need to ask the following questions:
If the answer to all three questions is “yes” - then what’s the problem?
What about decreasing the harm of the employees by suing him or reporting him to the state labor board or even just kicking his ass or any combination thereof. The above seems overly simplistic.
My stance on that example is that it is consistent with utilitarianism to not harvest healthy people because the mere act of doing so causes harm to all the other healthy people that weren’t harvested in the for of fear that they could be at some later point down the line.
Screw utilitarianism. At this point it’s fucking self defence. Either those parasites stop existing, or everyone will. They’re dead anyway, might as well save everyone else.