Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten
The consequence of death is equal, yes. However, I do not only regard the final outcome as all consequences of one action. As I am an utilitarianist I believe that an action is good if it leads to more happiness/pleasure than unhappiness/pain. This means the total pleasure and/or pain that the action causes throughout time.
Would the suffering of the animal be equal in both the cases I would say that the moral implications of both scenarios would be equal. In fact, I would argue that, given the conditions that in both cases the corpse of the animal is treated likewise, the best, most moral scenario would be the one with the sadist as he/she recieves pleasure from the action.
This is under the condition that it is a lone, isolated event and that the pleasure that the sadist recieves does not mean that he/she has had positive experiences on animal cruelty making him/her more likely to perform it again. (This, I would say, is likely the case.)
|
I've myself used utilitarian arguments to defend stemcell research and abortions in discussions here and I think utilitarianism is sometimes good when it comes to making the really tough choices such as who lives and who dies, but as a moral theory to follow in everyday life? .. Not so much.
There are several reasons. One immediate one is that it's too simple. One basic increase happiness/minimize suffering rule is too simple to take care of your emotional interests. Humans have a natural capacity for morale. It's an integral part of most of us and the utilitarian rule does not describe it. I'm not sure any one moral theory does which is why I think people find it hard to be devout followers of one moral theory. To be a devout utilitarianist might mean having to make moral decisions that come into conflict with your feelings which try to guide you in such dilemmas. Basically, any action considered immoral by other normative theories can become morally good as long as the consequences are and our emotions generally don't work that way.
I don't think a so simple rule is a good guide in day to day life and I don't think following a morale theory which so easily could come into conflict with your emotional interests makes that much sense either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten
I argue that the notion that immoral actions should always be punished, for punishment's sake alone, is based on feelings rather than logic.
|
Actually, this is what you wrote :
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten
The notion that immoral acts should be punished is not based on consequences but rather on feelings
|
And, the only way to interpret that sentence is that punishment such as the punishment of criminals is purely based on feelings. Of course it isn't. Punishment should have positive consequences, something you also admit :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten
B: Punishment works in a preventive matter by eg. scaring people into not commiting crimes or stating an example. (Of course punishment isn't enough, we also need eg. theraphy.) Due to A2, these are positive consequences.
|
So you admit there are positive consequences to punishment and my point then is that they are there by design and intention because of their consequence, not just because people want to see people punished.
I assume you do not actually mean the only reason society punishes criminals is to satisfy our hungry emotions, but hey - if you're gonna pick at my example argument which was specifically written to challenge Vegangelica's views and not your utilitarian ones, then I'm gonna nitpick at your post.
