By literally causing harm.

You understand that when utilitarians talk about the least amount of harm they are basically referring to suffering vs happiness?

Because human suffering isn't as simple as you're making it out to be?

And mostly because it's his choice if he wants to end his own suffering.

To him dying might out weigh the suffering of life.

Also, it's just a very lazy way to end somebody's suffering that doesn't actually stop the event that causes the suffering.

You never considered that he may be happier enduring his suffering than he is with giving up.

Or maybe you're trying to straw man me with that because it makes it easier for you to argue against that frame even though you basically lack the understanding of how nuanced and complicated human suffering is.

Yes it's his choice. I agree. That's why I don't think it's simply down to what "harms or helps."

That's just an ad hoc rationalization for morality, not the driving force. Morality is largely instinctual. You just feel it's wrong to kill an innocent man against his will regardless of any calculation regarding suffering or harm.

Except I did calculate it and you just didn't like that answer because it contradicts your narrative.

Morality is born from empathy and sympathy. We don't like seeing others suffer. We wouldn't want to kill somebody else who is suffering because we know that they might not want to die. Which would be causing suffering.

Is it moral to kill 1 baby in order to save 100 people?
Didn't we already answer that question?

https://www.originalsources.com/Imag...or.ashx?ID=258

... You're all over the place.

First I'm straw manning you by bringing it back to suffering vs happiness and next you basically confirm that framework with this post.

You can't say "you did the calculation" as the entire premise of the scenario was that somehow we know for a fact that killing him will be a net positive in terms of suffering caused vs suffering alleviated. It's an unrealistic hypothetical scenario, but then again so is the trolly problem and every other utilitarian thought experiment.

You had a problem with killing him not just based on suffering but on robbing him of the choice of whether to live. The same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply if he was considering suicide. Yet you wouldn't see that as wrong, because it's his choice. So already we're introducing elements other than pure suffering vs happiness into the moral equation.

Which is my point. Not that empathy doesn't inform morality, but it's not the only source that we draw from when making moral decisions.

It's not that I don't see the basic appeal of utilitarian thinking. It's just too simplistic to capture morality in its entirety.

Yeah, and that question has tons of nuances to explore to really make it an easy decision.

But the most dishonest thing about that question is that it acts like morality is a dichotomy between either right or wrong when there is tons of grey area. Shouldn't be "Is it good to kill a child to save 100 people?" but instead "Is it better to kill a child to save 100 people?" because killing the child is always going to be immoral on a certain level simply because it will cause suffering.