ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ค. 2024
- "Give me £10 or I lose a finger": A foolproof method for making money from utilitarians.
Link to Gustafsson's paper:
dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095382082...
I offer private tutoring in philosophy. For details please email me: kanebaker91@gmail.com
Support me on Patreon: / kanebaker91
Donate to my PayPal: paypal.me/kanebaker91
My Discord: / discord
0:00 - Bentham's mugging
2:38 - Utilitarian responses
14:32 - Self-defeating theories
![respecting beliefs | why we should do no such thing [cc]](/img/n.gif)
The implicit joke is that to a utilitarian, any bodily harm to a deontologist is a net positive
touché
Philosophy warr!! Ideological violence always goes great, right guys?
@@falseprofit9801Why you pressed; type of person to cut off their finger is not gonna be useful to anyone…
@@falseprofit9801 Bro did NOT read the "joke" part of implicit joke
@@somedood9989 lol
This is actually a real problem with people manipulating other's emotions with suicide threats.
Good point
People always draw parallels to suicide but never to pregnancies.
@@user-zu1ix3yq2w lmao? is it bad that made me laugh?
It's weird the guy didn't notice.
@@renovatioimperii3431Depends on why that made you laugh.
Me spending years proving to people that I always keep my promises so I can force someone with a very particular school of thought to give me 10 pounds
the long con
edit: looooooonnnnnggggggg
On a mathematical level nobody should ever have any reason to put faith in that
Jokes on you if they got friends who would pay more to see you lose a finger.
@@NerdOracle well its not exactly random, its not as though a dice is being rolled and the outcome of their promise will be random each time they make a promise
@@oilyfrog5022 You can certainly look at it that way, but from my perspective, (assuming the observer is the mugee) It is entirely arbitrary how much trust you can place on their words alone, even if they've never been on record breaking a promise, or have developed a seemingly consistant track record of upholding promises, logic dictate that you can never rule out the possibility of the Mugger changing spontaneously. It is entirely analog to flipping a coin from the victim's perspective and assumes, or insists that people are so inherently classifiable that their response to a circumstance is naught but deterministic, without acknowledging that we are all actively growing, changing, and adapting to the world around us. And a crazy pickle like this one definitely might be cause for introspection from either party if it ever transpired, or had a reason to. As I see it.
I don't think anyone is a utilitarian. Whenever someone tries to talk to me about utilitarianism, I tell them that discussing utilitarianism causes me immense, unpreventable pain. And yet! This does not seem to stop so called utilitarians from talking to me about utilitarianism.
If they don't talk about it, they lose happiness while you gain it. If they talk about it, you lose happiness while they gain it. Both actions are equal with a net income of 0 happiness so they choose their preferred one :))
@@adisca2k
Which increases autonomy which is also good
However if you hearing them talk about it is better for society in general and is more helpful that’s hurtful,they will choose it
this pain is you having to face reality, likely.
Laughed a little too hard at this 😂
You can also mug a utilitarian by telling them that you'll cut off _their_ finger unless they give you 10 pounds.
they don't even have to be a utilitarian for that tactic!
Pretty much everyone would take that deal if there wasn't another option how is this utilitarian?
@@morgancody6752 the joke went so far above your head a bird hit it
@@Jamiree7 jokes are supposed to be funny
@@morgancody6752- who says?
Alright. Here's my response. Tell me if this would work.
The utilitarian lets her cut off her finger and then makes it public what the deontologist just attempted, using the cut finger as proof. The utilitarian takes this opportunity to discourage future deontologists from coming up with the same mugging plan and mugging a potentially infinite number of future utilitarians.
Unfortunately, the Mugger has planted a bomb in the core of the Earth that will destroy the whole planet if you ever reveal anything about the interaction ;)
More seriously, this does seem like a plausible way out for the utilitarian. She can use this particular interaction to reduce the probability of muggings in the future, which would maximise utility, but presumably that's only going to work if she refuses to pay up.
@@KaneB
I mean at this point basically every moral system should pay up right ;P
@@KaneB Well, if the Mugger has planted a bomb in the core of the earth then wouldn't it be much more utilitarian to not pay her and let her cut off her finger? Because she is a real threat to cause a huge presence of pain by exploding the planet and by cutting her finger she is obviously less of a threat. Even if she continue to do this kind of deal with other act utilitarins, it would be better with every denial of paying up the 10 Pounds.
This is what the true (self-aware) utilitarian does.
This entire problem is predicated on the fact I wouldn't get far more joy from seeing someone cut off their finger than they would from $10.
Right. If you experience tremendous pleasure from causing pain, perhaps the most happiness you can create is yours at the expense of another. You're SO HAPPY
rule vs act utilitarianism
@@andiralosh2173 I think liveleak redditors would definitely enjoy that and would film it properly it isn't that far fetched though there are some sick people out there.
I'm not sure that you can be utilitarian and hedonistic (or sadistic) at least surely not to the fullest extent. Second of all, the "greater good" sought by utilitarianism is not morally relativistic. It relies, as many pre-postmodern philosophical systems, on a shared basic knowledge of good and bad, where physical harm falls squarely under the latter category. So, a utilitarian who is, in his spare time, sadistic, will have to forego the pleasure of seeing harm come to other people if he wants to stand by his utilitarian principles and will actively prevent this from happening whenever possible, unless he's actually not a utilitarian.
What about consensual BDSM ?@@vasileseicaru8740
But what if the utilitarian also was a sadist? Could he argue that his satisfaction seeing the mugger cut off their finger balances out their pain and therefore makes both options are equally good?
asking the real questions my man
Coolest scenario
Owning and satisfying such strong sadistic tendencies is generally conflicting with utilitarianism, so the right thing to do would be for the utilitarian to work on himself to not be such a sadist anymore, i. e. by seeking therapy. Being a sadist will also make him tend to do more sadistic things in the future and will generally make him more unhappy with making benevolent decisions.
@@daddyoftheabyss4992it really asks 'what is utility anyway?'. If we take personal preferences into account such as sadism, would utility become personal as well? Would it have any value anymore? Probably not.
@@maaikevreugdemaker9210 Which interest is not personal preference anyway? Personal preference should always be taked into account, just like discussions of utilitarian ethics always point to an discussion and understanding of the human being, its psyche in particular because it is the medium through which pleasure and value are perceived and defined.
Sadism is something that works against the interests of utilitarianism, but is not a human condition / a necessary need that MUST be fulfilled. Instead, it is a personal interest that can be cultivated and reduced by working on oneself and there lies the path of happiness maximization.
All these discussions are pointless if we don't have a good understanding of (depth) psychology, imho
You forgot to say that the added bonus of NOT giving the mugger the cash is that they get to practice their right to be a deontologist.
I'm not even a strict utilitarian, but I don't really see this as a challenge to utilitarianism, because I think the utilitarian conclusion here is pretty clearly correct.
Moral decisions happen in context. If someone is so desperate to get $10 that they're going to go to these sorts of extreme lengths to get it, as well as *legitimately* commit to never doing it again, it's reasonable to conclude that they need that $10 a lot more than I do. At that point, I'm pretty okay with giving it to them (assuming I have $10 I can spare). Hell, I might give them more than $10 at that point.
Honestly, yes. I think people get too caught up in trying to "beat the game" and don't consider that if someone is this desperate in real life for an amount as little $10, it's not at all an absurd thing to just give them the money.
Yeah, if there's really no negative consequences down the line, I'd just pay the Mugger and tell her to bugger off (and not invite her to my parties anymore, probably). It's whatever, it's 10 pounds, I was forced during my life to expend a lot more effort to placate hysterical people.
Bro you have fallen for their trick
@@swagmund_freud6669it's not a trick in this case though, the mugger is sincere.
Hey, I was born with glass bones and paper skin. Every morning I break my legs and every afternoon I break my arms. At night I lie awake in agony until my heart attacks put me to sleep. Should I just send you my paypal?
Promise the deontologist £10 if they talk through what the hell led them down this dark path of mugging utilitarians.
You get a probably interesting story, they get a chance to reflect on their actions and the £10 becomes a gesture of goodwill.
The deontologist refuses
“we broke out here”
@@obamagaming3802 What deontological sense does it make to refuse that?
@@Tzizenorec he believes accepting compromises with utilitarians is inherently evil
The issue with attempting to mug a utilitarian is if they ever feel like their life is in danger they will simply kill the mugger. If the mugger attempts to cut off their own finger the utilitarian might decide that beating the mugger into unconscious has less of a lasting effect on their health than the loss of a finger and you still get to keep your $10. Basically just don't try and mug a utilitarian in any way because every threat you make towards them is the same as making that threat to yourself.
Exactly, an action is not just defined as good or bad when it happens but also includes its lasting consequences
To do "the most good" can only be evaluated in retrospect
Since the mugger made a promise, they will eventually wake up and cut off their finger. That's why we use the deontologist as the mugger.
@@GamerTime_2002 say it louder for the people in the back.
@@kiranaun9593strap them to a desk and brainwash them until they're no longer a deonotologist
@@kiranaun9593steal all knifes especially if they specified the knife they will use, take it, and it is impossible to do
As a utility monster, my enjoyment utility of having or disposing of 10£ is infinitely more than that of any other party :3
She should pay me 10 fingers, actually.
@@drstrangecoin6050 fair enough
What a weird scenario. If the deontologist were desperate enough to even consider this, I'd give them the money without the threat.
Yes exactly! If they're mugging people at all, they probably need it way more than the other person. Unless the utilitarian is on the brink of homeless or something
@@Strogman25I need all of your money more than you do. Give it to me now.
I take it this is your first time coming across a thought experiment then?
@@treecko7424 it's not. It's just a bad thought experiment that makes assumptions about what's good, and bad that I don't share. If I had to guess, some rich conservative with no understanding of what drives people to desperate actions came up with it.
@@DarkPrject The point of a thought experiment is to test moral systems. The system that's being tested is utilitarianism, and the scenario is constructed specifically to be a difficult scenario for utilitarianism. Since that's our goal, we can essentially say that the mugger is doing it because they think they can get away with it.
Obviously that's not why people actually commit crimes, but that's a totally separate discussion. The thought experiment isn't supposed to be an accurate reflection of reality, just a way to test a moral system. If you don't hold that system, obviously you'll come to different conclusions - but that doesn't mean you can't get something out of the exercise of seeing what you'd do if you did hold that view.
This has the same problem as the trolley problem, and really, a lot of hypothetical ethical dilemmas. Ethics is essentially an empirical field, we notice we have some set of things we think are good and we think are bad, we notice people give reasons for them, so we try to build a framework around that to give us a way to make coherent arguments and reasoning around human decisions and actions within society.
When you start trying to use ethical frameworks to reason about situations outside of the problem space you get nonsensical results. Stating definitely that “the mugger isn’t lying” is not a situation that can happen. Stating definitely that “this won’t affect their future actions” is not possible (if you extorted someone for 10£ by threatening to cut off your finger, do you think it would affect your future actions or thought processes?).
Hypotheticals are great and useful, but actively distorting or limiting the problem space in ways that fundamentally change the how humans operate is outside the realm of the system. It doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the tool, it means you’re trying to use a hammer to slice a tomato.
Brilliance in effect.
By the time they had enough caveats to make the utilitarian advocate for the result that they thought was incorrect, you have a mugger who always tells the truth, will somehow not let this affect their future actions in any way, and no one else will ever learn about the situation. At that point, it seems entirely reasonable to sacrifice $10 to let them keep their finger. Hypotheticals are very interesting to consider, but when they get so far removed from reality, they often get pretty useless
While we're entertaining impossible scenarios for the sake of a thought experiment: I, as the utilitarian in this situation, would simply shoot the mugger with my ray gun of finger impermeability. Now you might think to counter this by using your finger impermeability shield, however what you couldn't account for is that there are 100 divination wizards nearby and they all rolled one's this morning...
Entertaining hypotheticals is important because it’s the best way to ensure a philosophy holds up under unforeseen scenarios. The fact that it doesn’t work in hypothetical situations implies the possibility of real situations where it won’t hold up.
@@connorcriss Entertaining hypotheticals doesn't work if the scenario is entirely unreasonable, especially if you keep piling on caveats until your argument is "unassailable." My point is that you're as likely to encounter someone who's mentally unstable enough to threaten self harm in an attempt to manipulate others, while simultaneously never breaking their word, as you would obtaining a device that makes fingers and only fingers impenetrable to cutting and only cutting. An honest manipulator is a contradiction by nature.
@@FrenchyMcToast it isn’t about this scenario in specific though. It’s about utilitarianism being incapable of producing a morally coherent result.
The fact it doesn’t work in this(admittedly unlikely) scenario means that there is some significant discrepancy between broad social standards of morality and the metric for morality that is defined by utilitarianism - ideally, we can find a philosophy that closes that gap.
@@connorcriss FrenchyMcFrenchfrench doesn't like to hurt their head while thinking. They might be wrong in touting this information about themself, but why take it on you to reason with someone who clearly has better things to do then watch a video that is not in their interest? My proposal is therefore: let Frenchy keep their opinion, no matter how unreasonable, while not engaging them. I believe that this is the best outcome for this whole ordeal ^^
@@connorcriss Utilitarianism doesn't work for this thought experiment? Is giving them the money not a valid answer? I get that the mugger is a terrible person and is exploiting you and all but I still wouldn't want them to lose a finger.
The falacy of the excluded middle is at play here, the Utilitarian has more then just 2 choices. The proper thing to do is to report this person to law enforcement to have them put in phyciatric care for their obviously deranged deontology (a clearly irrational and destructive ideology), with proper care she could be re-educated to a proper utilitairan (which would itself be highly utilitarian as you now have another person acting in a utilitarian manor). Note that this can be done AFTER giving the money and is far more impactful then the money or finger. The Utilitarian is compelled to act for the greater good amoungst all the options they actually have and over the full breath of time, and modifying the belif systems of others is an act available to them.
If two one-time murderers want to kill you and the only way to survive for you would be to kill them both in that moment (i.e. you can only shoot them in the head because the rest of their body is armoured), would you let them kill you, because two lives are more valuable than one (what if there is evidence that they would never kill again and never get caught)?
My point being, act utilitarianism shouldn't be applied to a scenario where forced sacrifice is involved in the first place, it's a false premise.
Plus, someone not having a finger is not necessarily a meaningful loss of utility (esp. to society), because you can just pick the cut finger up, put it in an ice-bag, and let doctors stitch it back on or on the hand of someone else who lost a finger.
@@KangMinseok presumably being a utilitarian you would bring about better consequences then the 1 time murderers over your lifetime, so it would be justified putting your life over theirs
@@josiahfresnel9217 Criminals can be reformed, and people with good moral frameworks can still be lazy. You could have a scenario where the utilitarian is a lazy rich guy, while the murderers, if reformed, will be able to contribute more to society.
@@mathguy97*CAN* be reformed. I rather take that bet thank you very much the societal cost even then is alot more then the lead and brass of a bullet.
@@ethanduncan1646 Dude you do know that people aren't inherently good or bad, right? Crime mostly exists because of poor socio-economic conditions. Multiple studies have found that simply giving people money for free drastically reduces crime in an area.
We were talking about edge cases here. The person I replied to argued that "presumably a utilitarian will bring better consequences", and my counterargument is that there's a very significant chance of the opposite being true.
The way this situation is set up, is basically identical to if there was someone trapped in a finger-cutting-off machine and you had to pay 10$ to free them. Just give them the money
Nah. Rather keep my $10
They trapped themselves in the machine, explicitly to extort me to free them. Saying yes reinforces abusive behavior, and if they mug more people, eventually the harm caused by mental distress and losing money would exceed losing a finger. So we say no to minimize future harm.
But the situation was basically always altered until it became effectively equivalent to my scenario. The person is never going to do it again, and we will be the only people that ever know of it, etc. This scenario is practically building the machine I described out of a very specific and impossible scenario of the human making the threat being just as ineviteable and uncompromising as a plain finger cutting off machine.@@thrilllight
@@thrilllight you didn't pay attention to all of the details. The problem also states that the mugger (who is unable to tell lies) promises that this interaction would stay between the two of you and it will not be attempted again by the mugger or any people that might imitate her MO, therefore, potential copycats wouldn't know that it took place and by extension they certainly wouldn't know if it succeeded.
So, thinking about how this may influence future similar interactions can be eliminated from the process.
@@vasileseicaru8740hypotheticals becomes less and less useful the more unrealistic details you add
Having 100% certainty that there will never ever be any future repercussions of allowing this behavior is not something based in this reality.
The "why trust the mugger" argument and "a finger or a life" argument do not stack. You cannot interact with suicidal deontologist twice. So the utilitarian can have both the second and the third counter-arguments.
Good point!
More suicidal deontologists = Fewer suicidal deontologists?
suppose the mugger is a group of 100 muggers who threaten to torture themselves for 1 year, and they already did it once
Would it work if they're holding someone for ransom, like "give my 10 pounds or I kill this person"?
@@crusatyr1452 I think it's very hard for a deontologist to hold the belief that killing someone is moral. In general this is an issue I have with this, how does the deontologist justify any of their actions, and if they don't, why do they keep to the principle of keeping promises?
What about negotiating with the mugger? She'd presumably want to keep her finger but apparently _really_ needs those ten pounds for something. That means she would probably be open to an alternative transaction as long as she gets the money, and since she always keeps her promises she can be trusted to honor any deal you make with her. So, you could offer to give her the ten pounds if she promises to do some good deed or favor in return, thereby increasing the utility of you having to part with your money. Note that she would technically still be keeping her promise.
I mean, _my_ reaction to all of this would be to ask: "Are you okay? Do you need help?" Like, find out why she's that desperate. This sorta sounds like an individual who really needs someone to talk to, and if we're talking about making the correct moral choice, perhaps start with showing some basic concern for the seemingly disturbed mugger?
Of all the comments I've scoured, you have made the most sense
The scenario explicitly headed this off by saying the mugger has already made a promise to follow her specific crazy ultimatum and will not waver even slightly.
...but yeah, the correct response might be to just disbelieve that and treat the mugger like she's perfectly capable of changing her mind.
The simple solution is to say no by saying no you get to be happy by keeping your £10 and she gets to be happy by keeping her promise
Even better than, there is actually a utility gain, because I'll put the finger in an ice bag and let doctor's stitch it onto a person who just lost their finger in an accident.
Yes, if she's prepared to chop off her own finger for a mere 10 pound, she clearly doesn't value that finger much, so any harm done is minimal. Perhaps her finger has gangrene and she was going to chop it off anyway!
She clearly values getting the money over keeping her promise or she wouldn't be making the threat
When I see stuff like this I can't avoid but think "only philosophers deal in absolutes"
I don’t see why it’s an objection: if you’re 100% sure that someone is that psychothic to cut off her own finger, wouldn’t it be insane to not give the 10£?
But the story doesn’t end there; such a person would not ‘get away with it’ in a utilitarian society. She should be treated as there is something obviously wrong with her. But of those two options, giving and not giving, it would be insane to not give her the 10£.
Ah yes, but have we considered the outcome of including "mo' money, mo' problems" in the utilitarian's calculations? 🤔
Yeah, ideally the utilitarian doesn't have the unnecessary £10 anyway because their income goes straight from their employer to pre-allocated charities, bills, and whatnot. Also you can carry a credit card instead of cash, which changes the dilemma. If you pay with your phone then we get into a whole other can of works because I'm not even sure it's moral to use the phone I'm currently using because it was probably made through slave labor and I set bad precedent by using it.
@@ncedwards1234 But you already bought it, did you? Not using it would make their sacrifice less worthwhile
Amazing title Kane. I love when you incorporate your humor into these videos
The original article is already pretty funny I think.
@@KaneBIt is, but I'm not reading the original article right now(and may never have), I'm watching your video about it because you're great at explaining philosophical topics in an engaging way (and the title was funny and engaging). You're increasing the amount of utils in the world my dude, give yourself some credit
@@dumbledorelives93 Thank you!
To me the most striking thing about the premise is that you have both "She never breaks her promises" and "She promises to cut off her finger contingent on a condition she doesn't control". Why'd she make that promise then? It seems like it's an attempt to put her future decision (to cut or not) into the past (to promise or not). And I think that's the point, so that she can create this threat but simultaneously lack the agency over this same threat. So it's brinksmanship.
And I think the best answer is to reject that attempt. Behave as if her choice to cut or not is under her control, regardless of her promise. If she really never breaks her promises, she'll be wiser about making them.
She knows she is talking to a utilitarian. But unlike how you know she is going to keep her promises, she doesn't know if you'll actually follow it. While your point about teaching a lesson is interesting, I think depending on how permanent cutting off the finger will be, it would be better to pay and then get her psychiatric help for wanting to risk it for such a low amount.
@@metarmask I see your point, but I also think that if the original premise resembled a position that people might actually hold or at least think they do, it'll no longer does. Now it is more like that logic problem where the 100 grey eyed monks kill themselves on the 100th day.
@@metarmask She *thinks* she's talking to a Utiliatarian.
What does a Utilitarian look like, act like? How do you pick one out off the street? How can you be certain this person abides by the diction of Utilitarianism, rather than simply ascribing to it in some incomplete or bastardized form? It's just as ridiculous for the Mugger to know their target as it is for the victim to trust the Mugger at face value.
She doesn't need to control your decision to keep her promise that if you do decide to not pay, she'll cut her finger off. In case you decide to pay, she doesn't cut it off, and has still kept all her promises, because the trigger condition was never fulfilled.
The situation breaks down pretty quickly.
For example, the objection that giving in would encourage repetition is dealt with by adding the information that the mugger promises this will be a one-time thing. But the objection that we can't know that the mugger will go through with their threat of self-harm is dealt with by adding the information that the mugger _pulled this crap last week._
At the end of the day, the primary reason most people find the conclusions of Utilitarianism so counter-intuitive is that most people just aren't Utilitarians.
Utilitarianism makes a lot more sense when you don't weight the happiness of all humans equally. When you give more weight to the happiness of one's self and family and friends and less weight to people who have a tendency to reduce the happiness of others (even if their happiness has no impact on that propensity) then you get a system that more accurately tracks with what most people consider moral.
that is the basis of the argument, that she never breaks her promises.
@@guul66 So how can she claim it's a one-time thing when she pulled the same crap last week?
@@nickwilliams8302 she didn't claim it was a one time thing last week.
@@guul66how do we know that she’ll keep her promise that it’s a one-time thing?
It doesn't really seem unintuitive to me to bite the bullet once we stipulate that the mugger will only do it one time and that the consequences of not doing so are sufficiently bad. And I don't know if I'd even call myself a utilitarian.
Same here. I'm not a utilitarian but I don't find it particularly counterintuitive that you ought to pay the Mugger.
I am also happy to bite the bullet. It is crunchy and low on calories.
Nearly all anti-utilitarian arguments construct a hypothetical like this where there, intuitively, is external negative utility (mugger will keep doing it / bad precedent). Then you are told to ignore that for the hypothetical (mugger promises is it one time) but you are still expected to consider the negative intuition. But the negative intuition lacks justification once there is no problem regarding precedent.
@@kensey007Exactly. They create situations where the intuition just isn’t justified, and then demand that utilitarianism should be intuitive. I don’t see why the “intuition”-nonsense is so adopted in moral philosophy. It’s about what is true, not intuitive. If the facts lead us to think that we should pay that mugger, we should do so, regardless of our intuition.
It depends on what exactly will she not repeat.
Since you'd expect 10 bux continuing being worth more than a finger, you'd also expect for the mugger to continue robbing you the same way until you can't cough up 10 more bux, then cut off their finger, so in the end, the utilitarian would starve and the other person would still lose the finger. Therefore, just letting them lose the finger immediately maximizes happiness.
Disregarding that, I believe to propose this the mugger would have to value their finger at or below 10 bux.
Based on the example of once per week it has happened, it is only 40 bux a month. If you can keep Netflix, you can keep this person from cutting off their finger.
That is to say, that has been covered already.
Yeah, 10 bux is fairly arbitrary, but a thought experiment is a thought experiment.
this is like a 2012 philosophy channel in the wrong world
its so nostalgic-like
If she promises to never mug someone again than you should give her $10. I mean it’s total assurance that a person will never commit a mugging again, or never mug a utilitarianist again. Either way it’s a net positive.
Additionally if it’s the latter and they can never mug a utilitarianist again than in order to keep their promise they would have to convince those they wish to mug to reveal their philosophical beliefs prior to attempting a mugging, thus essentially ensuring they never mug anyone ever again.
Paying someone to not do something bad that they wouldn't have wanted to do anyway is generally a bad idea.
Why the heck does this deontologist not consider mugging an evil act from the start?
She only has ten fingers or one life to lose. Refusing the mugging means she can only attempt it 11 times if everyone refuses, making her and the people immediately surrounding her in life very unhappy. So either she reevaluates doing this after losing the first finger, or she continues for a finite number of times.
But if you accept then she can go on to make an infinite number of people unhappy as she still has 10 fingers and 1 life.
this thought experiment is inherently flawed and doesnt consider any real life factors that the author doesnt want to be included.
@@nickwhright5848So like almost all philosophy questions lol: does not factor in the nuances of real life and cares more about owning their strawmem in classrooms
5:20
Imagine cutting off your last finger..
@@lirimiri7034 5:20 has nothing to do with anything I said
What a great video. I fell like most hypothetical situations which are designed to make utilitarian arguments counterintuituve are just weirdly exaggerating the consequences.
the cutting off of fingers is like the example with the demon: The description of the hypothetical situation "artificially" sets the negative consequences so extremely high, that a utilitarian would have no other choice than acting to avoid that. With this "strategy", you can force an utilitarian to a counterintuitive answer.
But this is actually the very reason why i like utilitarianism: It doesn't just ignore extreme situations. An extreme consequence (even if just hypothethical) has extreme influence on the moral evaluation. And i think that's how it should be.
I'm not committed to act or rule utilitarianism, but consideration of higher-order consequences generally pushes me in the direction of rule utilitarianism. Provided that the transaction is secret and that we have good reason to believe the mugger can be trusted not to repeat the behavior in the future, I would indeed say that you ought to pay the 10 quid. In the real world I think the second assumption is absurd (who is simultaneously manipulative enough to concoct such a blackmail-y scheme and trustworthy?) and the first one is questionable but plausible.
What interesting conversations have spawned from what seemed to be a simple scenario!
Well done, intruiging.
So glad I found this channel. Great video friend
Tbh, my problem was exactly what was adressed. The bad precedent. After that. I found myself being very happy with giving the mugger the money. I tryed finding a way in which I am biased, but still, I feel satisfaction with the outcome. Idk.
Yeah, once we're certain no precedent is set I don't think there's anything all that unintuitive about paying an obvious mentally unwell person ten bucks to make sure they keep all their digits.
@@Omnicide101 eh, not quite. I think the experiment becomes a bit useless, if your premises dont include that the mugger recieving money has no (or almost no) moral value.
@@theblakwarior Sorry, I don't quote follow, could you rephrase?
@@Omnicide101 like, the answer becomes too obvious if you would want to give your money in the first place. So this one only becomes interesting if it would have no utility for the mugger to recieve money. Like if they dont really need the money, technically.
Its not a very realistic scenario, but its still an interesting question.
@theblakwarior Ahhhh right, I mean I don't think whatever utility the mugger gets from the money matters because anything £10 can buy is overshadowed by the suffering of cutting off a finger.
The mugger better be missing a finger or two before they make a threat like that
Expecting people to be held hostage leads to negative utility, even if the hostage holder promises to be quiet about it
thank you for the white text and black screen, so much easier on the eyes than the other way around
I think you successfully illustrate why telling other people the exact process you use to make decisions is a bad idea.
Telling people you're a deontologist actually seems really useful, even if it's a lie.
The Act Utilitarian shoots her with a sleep dart and then admits her into a psychiatric asylum.
The Act Utilitarian makes her promise to return the money immediately after receiving it.
How would you make her promise to return the money immediately after receiving it, Unless you threaten her with something, In which case she might be disinclined to believe you as any sort of major bodily harm against her would likely lead to less utility than your loss of 10 pounds?
What kind of utilitarian am I if I don't give the mugger £10 to enjoy seeing him cut off his finger?
as long as you get more joy than the mugger does pain, then technically...
Then you have invented Sadotarianism in which you maximize happiness after adjustment for your own Sadism, so long as you enjoy the other guys suffering more the they suffer your still a net possitive.
Edgelord utilitarian
Unimaginablely based.
It doesn’t feel counter intuitive to me at all that you should pay the mugger. Setting utilitarianism aside my intuition is simply that anyone should pay the mugger. That person’s probably going through a rough time and needs the money, they just threatened to cut off there finger for god sake.
I'm inclined to pay up just because I find his scheme so funny. He deserves the £10 for ingenuity.
With the mugger keeping it secret and promising to never do it again, with you knowing for sure that it is true, I'd just give her the 10 pounds, like it's not that big of a deal to be honest.
well thats the issue though. lets say she came from some crazy deontologist cloning factory, and theres just thousands of her running around, and each one of them has been taught to seek out utilitarians.
the problem isn't so much a "as a one off thing should you give the $10", it's "as a rule, should you say yes or no."
@@cbunny6671That basically takes us back to the situation in the beginning where the utilitarian lets her cut off her finger to avoid the bad habit of letting demonologists exploit the utilitarian's systems.
13:53
Smoothest self-advertising transition in a Kane B video yet
So I'm only at 5:30, but here's my counter argument: giving a mugger $10 to avoid them committing self-harm does not, in my opinion, carry more utility. It is not the obvious choice to me in this situation, and here is why.
A mugger is an immoral person and a criminal. By attempting to use coercion to streal money from others, they've demonstrated that they put their own gain above the stability of society. As such, for such a person to gain money would be inherently bad and most likely lead to further negative consequences in the future. I think it'd be better for society overrall if that person went through with cutting off their own finger.
My favorite is when people give me a gift expecting to create a sense of reciprocity or obligation. If I yield to somebody else's wish for me to accept a gift, that means the gifter has received a favor and is indebted to me.
The mugger chose to make the promise in order to manipulate people, and under no duress. They clearly are willing to lose that finger over a pittance of money. If they would rather mutilate themselves than find an alternate way to make about an hours' worth of minimum wage income, the Utilitarian thing to do is to ensure they obtain medical mental help.
Nice, the idea is more clever than I expected from the title.
honestly i think if someone went up to me and said “give me £10 or i promise i will cut off my finger” i would probably give them £10? i feel like that’s not an unreasonable amount for me to give up
In that case, I do need £10
This is a intriguing conundrum and brings to mind a similar situation in the marvelous film, "The Banshees of Inisherin."
@@boncedestroya834 Thank you! It's a pleasure to receive a reply - any reply - as YT censors most of my comments. 1984
Not having to see someone cut their finger off and not having to bear the guilt of (sort of) being responsible for someone losing their finger is probably worth more than 10 pounds to me.
So actually, it's win win
You'd have been best off not getting roped into it at all. And the responsibility of losing a finger is on those wills who enact the consequence, not yours for finding yourself the unwilling bystander. Still, you are free to take whatever action you think benefits you, and I agree watching it unfold could be uncomfortable. Though what if we'd just spent our last 10?
@@NerdOracle sure, not getting robbed would have been better. but i have no control over that.
But i actually do have (some) responsibility to give them the money. Because with my actions, i can save a human finger with minimal effort! It would be immoral to say "not my problem" and just let them do. This would 'waste' a finger for no reason. (saving 10$ ist't a good reason by a long shot)
Maybe as an analogous situation:
you see someone drowning in the lake. In this situation, you have the responsility to save them, even if that means getting you're 10$ jacket wet and ruining it. You still have that responsibility even if its completely this persons fault, maybe they were drunk and fell into the lake, or they even jumped in completely willingly. The responsibility is still there, because the different outcomes are in no proportion to each other.
@@resiknoiro7506 I see a whole lot to unpack here, I don't see any of it as objectively incorrect, but it seems narrow-minded, optimistic in particular, and frankly gullible.
I'll take it in order,
"-i have no control over that." It is entirely understandable to me why or how one might believe this, and it certainly wouldn't be wrong to say so in a considerable number of relevant/similar cases in the real world. But I posit it isn't entirely true, and in fact any scenario that does *literally* deny you any control, ought inherently absolve the person in question of any responsibility beyond one's own, to their self. We most always have choices available to us, and decisions to make, it is an entirely personal matter how clearly one perceives the options at their disposal, and how creatively they can be executed.
"(some) responsibility to give them the money." Frankly I concur, but the matter isn't really *that* simple either. There is an inherent responsibility *to help* , if one subscribes to that notion. But the form that assistance takes is entirely arbitrary upon closer inspection.
"with my actions, i can save a human finger with minimal effort." How I see it, you've not put that finger in jeopardy, the damage is in fact going to be inflicted independent of you, literally self-inflicted. You've no obligation to protect the finger, or rather the person, from themself. I feel it is naturally compassionate to *want* that, but one must assume such a thing to be possible. One would be in the immediate moral right to try, but in the grand scheme inconsequential, so I'd argue one should not. Consider the example your actions set when remembered and repeated, another pair of Mugger and Mugee inevitably arises again, and must be handled exactly the same way every time, if one moral right stands true in this regard.
"It would be immoral to say "not my problem"." In theory alone. In practice, the truer moral action is understanding what has led the situation to arise at all, to deduce how best to mediate it. Accepting the Mugger's 'threats' of self-harm is fundamentally a play and manipulation of *your* emotions, turning *you* the observer into a victim of your own world-view and preconceived notions, or your moral compass, provided the observer holds one at all. You perceive yourself as helping, saving, aiding, (or if you're more self-aware, escaping) when in reality you're taking an easy way out to avoid directly confronting the underlying dillema(s) at work, perhaps even one's own feelings. I feel this is a testament to how we as a collective can tend to over-distill morals in their entirety, believing them to be simpler than they truly ought to be, perhaps for sake of our own ease of understanding, to begin with.
I *do* , however, feel we possess a collective responsibilty to "mend" any and all damage done to 'the finger', within a reasonable extent of our combined abilities. In reality, such efforts may be insufficient for perfect recovery, or may never come at all. But such is reality, and so are the consequences of ones own actions. Any permanent damage ought then be viewed as an unresolvable karmic consequence of actions *like* self-harm, and attempted burglarly (in some capacity), or simply not to repeat this theoretical person's particular mistakes. So to speak, the damage ought be accepted, if only to assure continuity and progress in resolving *all* roots of the particular 'problem'. A form of natural karma to discourage such foolishly sophisticated, or convoluted, harassment. Under such conditions, the finger is never "wasted", persay. It even serves the severer as a potential learning experience, given how one perceives that sort of thing.
"saving 10$ isn't a good reason by a long shot." Reveals our thinking in the moment is still centered around the value of the money. I'd posit it's wrong to value the finger in terms of currency at all, another reason the Mugger is in the wrong, for forwarding such a suggestion, attaching a defined value to their vessel, albeit a part of it. The value of $10 is ever-changing, defined loosely by the collective perceived value of every other thing. We ought to be challenging ourselves to reason this person out of self-harm, even if that requires a learning experience. One ought to learn not to touch the hot stove carelessly, after their first burn.
"you see someone drowning in the lake. In this situation, you have the responsibility to save them-" Agreed. That responsibility ought be shared by all willing, able observers.
"-even if that means getting your 10$ jacket wet and ruining it." While I technically don't disagree, I would urge you to consider the detrimental effects of charging in recklessly without preparation. That jacket could spell your own doom as well, if it sufficiently impacts your ability to swim, if you are capable of it at all. Even before valuing the jacket, you must assure your own success before you can truly correct anothers' failures. If you can manage to discard the hazards to your success, you should, following reason.
"You still have that responsibility even if it is completely this person's fault-" By this point we've altered the circumstances too far to consider it reasonably congruent. What you say is morally consistent, nothing more. By my own rational, I'd agree with what you're saying in analog, but it does not speak to the depth of the original hypothetical. Yes, we still share the responsibilty of saving this different person whom is at risk of drowning. But that's really all there is to say about the matter. Outcomes and proportion ultimately bear little consequence.
(+Edits, for typos)
utilitarian argument for kane's patreon: the more people know about utilitarianism, the more it will be practiced.
Utilitarian argument for Kane's patreon: because people are terrible at assessing consequences, it would minimise utility if everybody became utilitarian and tried to maximise utility, and Kane encourages people not to be utilitarian.
I read the title and thought this was some crazy thought provoking experiment, when its just "would you give someone 10 dollars for them to not cut their fingers?"
I don't consider myself a utilitarian but they would argue that following social rules such as "people are not individually responsible for the well being of strangers" is necessary to increase happiness in the whole of society while sacrificing edge cases like this
Exactly, otherwise if two people wanted to murder you and you could only survive if you'd kill them, then you'd have to let them kill you, because two lives are more valuable than one blablabla
A true utilitarians knows it's unethical to be utilitarian
@@Laezar1 I've never felt so validated and so attacked at the same time
@@extremepayne I guess the example can be ignored then because act-utalitarianism was already shown to be non-utilitarian so to speak, since any moral theory that rewards immoral actions is pretty useless 😂 This video is basically the equivalent of "Act-utalitarianism, which has been shown to reward immoral behavior and is therefore not a useful moral theory, has no defence against certain immoral actions."... tell us something new.
@@Laezar1 I get this is meant to be a joke, but arguing that utilitarians should consider moral decision making with more long-term consequences in mind isn't self-defeating to anything but naive caricatures of utilitarianism that are, erroneously, denied the ability to be more sophisticated in its expectations about utility.
So, about the setting a precident example, what stops the mugger from making the exact same promise immediately after you give them the 10 pounds? Would you not also be obligated to give the mugger your money again and again? Are all of your material posessions worth a single finger? I consider the cost to me of losing all of my posessioms as higher than the value of a finger. In my reading, a utilitarian must decline if they view the sum value of all of their posessions as greater than that of a finger.
To get away from this scenario with your money in your pockets you just need to accept that mugger loosing their finger isn't actually harming them(if they are in sane concious and want to do it to themself, then they must have a reason). If they want to do it, then the joy of doing it would overwrite the pain. Boom.
I'd just put the finger in an ice bag and let doctors stitch it on the hand of someone who lost their finger. Utility pretty much restored.
Honestly, if somebody came up to me and was like, "I will cut off my finger if you don't pay me 10 dollars." I would probably pay them 10 dollars.
The correct response to Bentham’s Mugging is “oh crap I calculated wrong, shouldn’t have let this happen”
You know, being a virtue ethicist is difficult. There is a lot I have to consstantly struggle with. But having watched this video, Im incredibly grateful that I don't have to struggle with this.
uh oh it looks like someone is asking for a virtue ethicist oriented moral dilemma
Virtue ethics are dumb 🗣️💯
Virtue ethicism still has a better grounding than whatever this is
@@galacticguardian2783 me when I kill a group of small children (it’s okay because I felt bad about it therefore I’m growing as a person)
@@frimi8593No such thing, at least with my moral framework. All of those exist outside of normal reality, and so are irrelevant to discussions of morality.
I get the idea of the hypothetical, but there is a very easy solution.
The mugger could ask for the $10, and if they don't give it then they cut off the victims finger rather than their own. Or, the mugger could kill them.
That would be a lot more effective for pretty much every theoretical response, and far less ridiculous. Plus applicable for non-utilitarian's too!
That's not a thought experiment that's just a mugging
Wouldn't the utilitarian response be to take action to prevent this from occurring while minimizing sadness and maximizing happiness
Then you can run
In point of fact you could then ask for a much greater amount of money
This reminds me of Pascal's Mugging! Basically, any mugger can claim they are a deity, and if you don't hand over your money, you will burn forever, and if you do, you will have eternal paradise. Since you cannot prove whether they are or are not a deity, their best course of action is always to hand over your money.
I quite enjoyed the hypothetical solutions to the objections getting more and more ridiculous as the video went on
This charity must be quite effective indeed if it can buy nets so fine that can they catch malaria itself for under 2 pounds.
You got through the patreon plug without mentioning the proposed future disposition of your fingers. Thanks for not trying to mug me.
i love how the thought experiment just kept getting more and more extreme
"the problem with this response is we can completely change the original hypothetical"
hey, maybe I don't trust that these people are going to kill themselves for 10 bucks.
"Well, you know they'll do it because you've interacted with them before and they've already killed themselves."
idk sounds like the problem solved itself george
I feel like something often missed about utalitarianism is that one needs to define what goals we want to maximize.
Relevamt to this situation is a belief in the right to not be coerced, really just an extrapolation in a wish to maximize freedom.
As a rule-utalitarian, I'd say a system where one can expect to coerce others to act as you will by threats that are on a case-by case worse imposes indue force upon the individual.
And regarding the whole impartiality-thing, one should strive to be 100% impartial. This is does ofc not mean one needs to flip a coin to decide between buying random ppl dinner or going out with friends. However, when faced with the trolley-problem with 1 friend vs 5 strangers, one must understand that your personal relationsip does not impart more inherent value onto the 1 person.
Ofc no utalitarian, including me, can act with perfect rationality, but that does not make the lens of analysis less valuable.
This is neat. You covered a lot of the initial squirmy questions I had (by NO means to the level of rigor that I can no longer squirm, but frankly such a depth might be impossible in philosophy; a little hand waving is to be expected). The addition I would like the most is what you believe the moral choice is here, not "as a utilitarian", but in general. There's sort of this framing of this thing like it puzzles the simple utilitarian, but it's not like this interaction would be particularly easy for anyone.
Also, I'm sure it's been mentioned, but this is not just some funny thought experiment, this comes up all the time. Plenty of people who suffer immensely without their codependent. Your buddy who is like for sure gonna relapse if you don't sacrifice some afternoons. Etc. Etc.
Quick question, do you really think this is a difficult question for the average non-utilitarian? The only difficult thing about this hypothetical is that the mugger has a knife, and most people don't want to be stabbed. But I have no moral issue refusing to give $10, and frankly would probably laugh in the muggers face if she actually cut off her finger.
@@userequaltoNull with a couple qualifiers, yeah. firstly, I mean anyone in genuine pursuit of virtue. if you're gonna say "I like my $10 and I don't care what happens to this guy", then sure, it's not a hard problem, but you also haven't even tried to ask what the right thing to do is, just what you want to. secondly, I mean the general version of the problem. there should be some version of it where you voice your complaints and he tweaks the setup and then you have a moral quandry. like, if you've supposed the mugger is evil, try supposing he is mentally ill, or maybe even totally ethically sound (maybe he has 3 minutes to pay the loan shark back or he'll kill his son or something). I think the meat of this is "if my $10 is worth his finger to me, why, is that okay, and when is it not?", and I don't think any of those questions are easy. and then thirdly but probably least importantly, you did the role-playing thing I tried to ward against :P i don't think anyone really in practice is utilitarian or non-utilitarian absolutely, and I don't like the underlying implication that dogma is more important than context.
Mugger: You a utilitarian?
You: Not anymore
QED
honestly, if they need £10 bad enough to threaten to cut off their own finger they probably need it more than me
10:20 you mention giving the mugger money being a counterintuitively moral choice? I feel like I'm missing something like I don't really consider myself a utilitarian, but like I wouldn't hesitate to give the mugger money, I don't see how someone could see a mugger threatening to cut of their finger for $10 and decide to just let that happen, I feel soo confused
1 minute into the video
As a utilitarian I might keep my money and let them learn a valuable lesson about trying to maliciously abuse utilitarianism for personal gain, and reduce the likelihood of them carrying out such a thing in the future, or anyone being subjected to it
Exactly, he doesn't seem to count dissuading future harm as an offset of harm
My first question would be are you currently considering doing this to other people, or me again, if no, then give the £10. If yes, then don't give the £10
Keep watching
yeah. you've reduced the amount of times they are capable of mugging people by their odd ideology by 1.
i think that would be more valuable a lesson than 10 dollars.
@cbunny6671 On second thought, remembering that it's only $10 bucks, I'm just gonna give the crazy person 10 bucks so I can go about my day and not get shanked or involved in some shennanigans
That doesn't work, because the mugger promised she'd never do it again, and she'd keep it a secret.
Very fun video :)
before watching the full video, here's my thought:
you must split it into two possible circumstances, either this is a regular occurrence or it is a one-off occurrence. If it is a singular occurrence that implies the person is so desperate that they are willing to risk their finger, in which case they could have just asked and a true utilitarian (presuming they believed the story) would likely give them 10 dollars.
The other possibility is that it is a repeat problem, in which case the act-utilitarian must consider the long term implications of the action. To repeatedly refuse is to, at least eventually, stop the muggings from continuing, which removes all the negative affects that such muggings have on society. But repeatedly giving them the money is to eventually spend thousands of dollars and enormous amounts of time and emotional energy to preserve a single finger.
On a separate note, this hypothetical is not purely hypothetical. Comparable situations are unfortunately somewhat common. Such as boyfriends/girlfriends threatening suicide should their counterpart break up with them. Though one could imagine the threatener being an act utilitarian themselves, thinking that should they not get what they want then the negative in their life will exceed the positive. Which then makes suicide a way to maximize global utility. But one could argue they would be mistaken in that belief
As a utilitarian myself, I see all kinds of problems with this. One of the things that tends to unite utilitarians is that we think life is messy and we ought to use reasoning skills rather than unbreakable imperatives.
Sorry to attack the premise just as you anticipated, but there's no such thing as someone who always keeps their promises. So, if we're imagining an impossible scenario, perhaps this is rational. But the idea that you can trust the mugger to cut off their finger and never to mug you again and to never mug anyone else again, etc, is just out of the realm of reality.
If they are unethical enough to blackmail you, then by definition they are not ethical enough to be trusted not to pull this stunt again on you or someone else.
I might give the mugger $10 anyway, one time, because it's a small amount of money and certainly worth not losing a mugger finger over. But I would cut ties with that person immediately, because they're obviously a manipulative psychopath, so I would have no way of knowing if they fulfill their promise to not do it to anyone else, and I would expect that they actually will. So that would bother me, that I encouraged them, and potentially led to their victimization of others. In the real world, rather than the fantasy world where there is a monkey who can always be trusted to keep a promise their entire life.
It seems like the author is trying to break utilitarianism, which is born of pragmatism, by suggesting very unrealistic scenarios. But part of pragmatism is also realizing you can't get it exactly right every time, and just doing your best. So suggesting unrealistic scenarios to try to "break" the idea of using your brain and rationality to navigate difficult moral landscapes really misses the point a lot.
Nobody has these crystal balls that give us the perfect knowledge which is always at the heart of utilitarian philosophical dilemmas. They always seem to assume perfect knowledge of circumstances and outcomes, which aren't available in the real world. And it's the real world which is the very reason that utilitarianism exists. It wasn't born of ivory tower philosophy, it was born as a reaction to ivory tower philosophy - e.g. Kantianism.
So it strikes me as interesting, if not even tendentious, that most of if not all of the thought experiments designed to critique utilitarianism compel us to assume counterfactual, unrealistic conditions as a prerequisite. This seems very obvious to me, so it bothers me that it's not obvious to people like the author.
Utilitarianism falls folly to a deeply destructive moral imperative which can be summated as "without boundaries, there can be no good or evil". The entire premise of the utilitarian pretending to be moral or ethical is a joke. You *cannot* be a moral utilitarian, as you define your set of values on what is most beneficial, not what is "right".
This doesn't seem like a problem at first, until you realize that this leaves the proverbial ethical goalposts of society completely floating. So long as anyone can justify enough benefits at a low enough cost, literally *anything* is now suddenly permissible within an exclusively utilitarian framework. Sexual assault, theft, genocide, murder, blackmail, literally all of it can be done under the right circumstances because utilitarianism does not, nor can it, recognize them as "wrong" in the first place.
So the only rational thing you can do ends up being irrational in the first place. Within the confines of the cold nihilism of an uncaring universe, of course murder cannot be wrong, and therefore if it brings enough benefit we can justify it. But if we establish a set of rules as immutable and absolute, set forth by forces beyond our individual autonomy and authority, we now have a framework upon which we can make rules. By escaping the overwhelming chaos of lawlessness, we can establish the necessary order needed to form a functioning society, and we can do this by arbitrarily and irrationally holding some values or virtues sacred. The value of human life, the sanctity of human freedom, the respect of another human's property, all things we generally recognize to be "good", born not from logic, but irrational belief in good or evil.
After that foundation is built, of course it is useful to apply a healthy dose of logic and utilitarianism. But utilitarianism itself is only useful or effective on a short timescale and a small scope. Two individuals making decisions in the moment with an immutable foundation that they base their ethics on can apply utilitarian thinking to make things much more efficient. But humans are not capable of thinking on the truly cosmic scale that would be required to make utilitarian decisions on a generational timescale, and I haven't even touched on the inherent mental biases and vices that plague us as inherently irrational creatures that ultimately preclude a just outcome from attempts at purely logical thinking.
@@bort6414 well it's good that utilitarianism is not a religion and it's not mutually exclusive with consequentialism or secular humanism then.
Seems to me that these responses to the Utilitarian’s objections just keep moving the goal posts ad hoc to adjust for cases in which the Utilitarian logic gives good reason not to give up the 10 pounds.
in fairness, adjusting the terms of the thought experiment is technically moving the goalposts but also isn't fallacious. It's simply admitting "yes the utilitarian does have an adequate answer to that particular construction, but what if instead it looked like this?" Altering your thought experiment to account for objections is a perfectly fine argument to make because a utilitarian ought to believe that utilitarianism is the correct lens of analysis in any hypothetical one could possibly come up with
@@frimi8593 But not adequate enough in the one shifted away from when an objection is levied. It becomes fallacious when the parameters are shifted *because* the logic of Utilitarianism faltered in that particular situation and required the parameters being shifted in order to maintain validity.
tbh i think the fact that people aren't omniscient is the biggest argument against utilitarianism in practice that I've seen, and I consider myself a utilitarian
That people aren't omniscient doesn't mean people shouldn't try their best with whatever information they have. That's kind of your only option no matter what system you believe in.
This feels like a "demon comes out of a portal" scenario where a demon comes out of a portal and tells you they will do something horrific unless you do something slightly less horrific. The two scenarios are essentially the same if we don't care who dose the action. I think that just happened in a black mirror episode but whatever
For an act utilitarian, the utilitarian has to assess all the consequences, so it is not only about how else the £10 could be used by himself, but also about how the mugger might use the money, which could be to produce a lot of misery.
A promise can only be fulfilled if whoever promises is able to fulfil the promise. A mugger could say give me the money or I shall sell my soul to the devil. This could be promised in all earnestness but if the utilitarian does not think this is possible, that alone could allow him to dismiss the demand. In your case the utilitarian needs to know not only that the mugger will carry out her pledge, but also that she has the capability.
Another possibility is that unknown to both the utilitarian and the mugger is that the finger harbours a malignant tumour, in which case cutting off the finger could be a life saver.
Your odd scenario highlights a generally acknowledged problem with act utilitarianism at least for the actual time of the act in that it is impossible to calculate the consequences. As a means for assessing past actions when the immediate and secondary consequences are known act utilitarianism works much better. This is why rule utilitarianism seemed more plausible as a guide for current actions, though this leads to problems with the formulation of the rules (how do you prevent them dissolving into act utilitarianism?).
Although I don't think that Bentham's Mugging really presents any difficulty for utilitarianism, I've always felt that the more general problem you discuss there -- the impossibility of calculating the consequences -- is about as close as we've ever come to a knock-down problem for a philosophical position. Actually, the problem isn't just about calculating the long-term consequences, it's that it seems to me that there's no way to make sense of the idea that there's even any fact of the matter about the long-term consequences of various possible actions. We can, perhaps, trace the causal chains from the action that is actually performed. But we have to compare the consequences of that action to the consequences of possible alternative actions that were never performed, and once we run the tape onwards, say, 1000 years from those merely possible actions, it's going to be totally indeterminate what would have happened.
@@KaneB the thing about that is that we can know some things without needing to know the net utility of an action 1000 years down the line. That's because no one action exists in a vacuum. Rule utilitarianism is useful because rather than going off of pure causality chains that are unknowable, we can make decisions based on predictable trends that, even if they aren't predictive all the time, will result in net positives. And as long as we are always upholding and updating our code of conduct in accordance with the observable trends of the present, we will always be doing a utilitarian good. This is because a single action now has vastly more effect on the world today than a single action 1000 years ago in almost all cases. As a utilitarian all I really need to do to ensure that my actions will have a positive effect on the world 1000 years from now is promote the long standing preservation of utilitarian thought; as long as people 1000 years from now are utilitarian as well than my actions as a whole, not just an individual action whose causal chain is unknowable, have created a net good in the world.
I think the problem you’re running into is that people aren’t morally perfect or consistent. Saying all deontologists who believe promises should be kept always keep their promises or all utilitarians must donate most of their money to charity, is like saying all Christians always follow the teachings of god and Jesus. It’s silly, people pick and choose what they want from a framework and moral system, and even if they believe in it 100%, people still go against their own morals.
This isn't about people in practice, this is about how internally consistent the theory itself is under scrutiny
@@nathanharvey8570Exactly, he's trying to apply moral theory to practical application/docrine. That's not what utilitarianism or deontology are. It's like arguing that Christianity is good because it preaches loving your neighbor, thus Christians must all love their neighbors. Philisophical moral theory is not the same as theory that is meant to be applied to your life.
Two Things!
First: Um yea if a person came up to me and told me they would cut off their hand or kill themselves if I didn't give them $10 and I was absolutely sure they were telling the truth and I knew it wouldn't set a bad precedent, then yea I'd give them the money, are there seriously many non-utilitarian people that wouldn't?! I feel like that isn't a strictly utilitarian problem!
Second: The last third of the video about a lot of different utilitarian stuff, like how being a utilitarian can mean you have to take on other beliefs sometimes in order to maximize happiness and how that's ok and still within its framework, was well put! Not sure how novel the ideas are as I don't normally watch videos on morality systems, don't know how youtube gave me this, but I'm glad I found a video explaining a lot of my thoughts on being a utilitarian!
Have a good day!
babe wake up new kane b just dropped
Thankyou fot this! I work for an international humanitarian organization and this exercise resonates strongly with me. I’m convinced over the years the necessary conversation between deontological, utilitarian and virtuous has been hijacked by Utilitarianism. Add to the equation that the money you give to the mugger a) comes from donors’ pockets by means of convincing p.c. narratives and b) makes you a bigger, more competitive actor in the political economy of relief, and you have a case for the two other schools of ethical thought. Then it is semantics: ‘impartiality’, in humanitarian terms, is not merely giving everyone the same, it is giving what is needed as per specific needs AND actual capacity devised through the organization’s ontology/doctrine. Thx again...
considering you complain about "p.c. narratives" in this comment, I can see why you're not a utilitarian. In my opinion an international humanitarian organization can ONLY be considered successful if it creates positive utility; if it tosses utility to the wind in favor of deontological or virtuous posturing then it has no purpose beyond expensive virtue signaling. While not humanitarian, PETA is a good example of an organization that has a stated doctrine-based goal (the ethical treatment of animals) yet fails spectacularly at achieving those goals on account of their strict non-utility-driven ethics leading them to euthanize vastly more animals than any comparable shelters or organizations.
Deontology and Virtue Ethics *_should_* be hijacked by Utilitarianism. Deontology is only worth following if the reason we give a damn about universalization in the first place is because they prioritize more positive-sum interests in the general population, which are the only interests that, when satisfied, can bring about _more_ well-being in the world than what came before, and are thus the only way to maximize utility. A similar, if not identical, case applies to Virtue Ethics when it comes to what counts as a virtue and why we should care to have them.
@@thek2despot426 While I partially agree with what you've said here, I can't say that it describes all deontologists or virtue ethicists. There ARE derivations of Kantian Deontology (which is not the only form of Deontology but is the one you're referring to when referencing universalization) and Virtue Ethics that don't stem from an analysis of utility. Kant himself largely argued for his ethics as "how to preserve society" in essence. This is not a measure of utility, as the universalization argument is essentially binary in outcome; either society is preserved or it isn't. In addition, while I think it's a horrible philisophy, both Deontology and Virtue Ethics can and often are derived straight from Divine Command Theory, a philosophy of ethics and metaphysics held by billions today. And lastly, there is of course the most obvious workaround (in my opinion) which is simply that the Virtue Ethicist's values aren't derived from anything, but are simply chosen arbitrarily, taken as axiomatic principles. Note that this is also necessarily where a Utilitarian derives their primary value. Similarly, the axiomatic belief of Kantians that society ought to be preserved is also an arbitrarily chosen axiom of value. Any moral system must arbitrarily assign a value to care about at some stage, as they cannot be derived from observing the world (unless you think your ethics are derived from the universe in which I would actually be extremely interested to hear how you arrived at that, unless it's divine command in which case I'm extremely uninterested). Typically, as far as I can tell, the values we choose tend to come from nothing more than intuition or having been raised to have a certain set of values from childhood. I disagree with all Deontologists and Virtue Ethicists, but I always hated when people of any belief look at another belief and say "actually you do hold my belief deep down, but don't realize it."
what would you call a moral strategy where I "precommit to never giving in to blackmail"? that's where my instinct goes in this case, so I'm probably not an act-utilitarian.
Make a promise that if you ever give in to blackmailing you will have to kill yourself after, which is like the mugger's position but more extreme lol.
What you’ve described is probably closest to a deontological framework. The logic following that “if everyone were to give in to blackmail them society would fall apart therefor one ought not ever give in to blackmail.” As opposed to the act utilitarian whose logic is generally “I will weigh the consequences of giving in vs not giving in and pick the most optimal one on a case by case basis; there is no universally correct response to blackmail”
@@ncedwards1234 the fun thing about moral thought experiments is one-upping people lol
@@frimi8593 Thanks.
When I interrogate my feelings on this, I don't exactly see a universalizing argument about "what if everybody did it", even if I might think nobody should do it. It's more like this:
I would personally commit to never giving in to blackmail, to constrain reality to those universes where people who would use it against me will never gain concessions by using it.
When thinking about precommiting to things, neither player is really *truly* bound to precommiting, so I think it sort of comes down to a game of chicken in this case.
You sort of have 3 outcomes.
Deontologist breaks their promise: -D | 0 (where D = the loss in value from breaking a promise in Deontology)
Utilitarian breaks their promise: M | -M (where M is the amount of money being mugged)
Punish state (both players break their promise and get punished for it): -F | -U (where F is the physical pain of losing a finger, and U is the loss in value from letting a finger be cut off in utilitarianism)
In any one interaction, it may be that both players keep their promise, leading to a state that is worse for everyone. But in the "limit", you expect at least one player to chicken out, as this will give them value infinitely into the future. (The interaction won't literally happen an infinite number of times, but it sets a precedent for future actors as well)
Here, the Deontologist goes from "losing a finger" to "breaking a promise", gaining F - D.
The Utilitarian goes from "seeing a finger lost" to "losing the money", gaining U - M.
I think whoever gains the greater value from this interaction will be the one to break it in the limit (though, i don't like, have a proof of this, that just seems like what should make sense game-theoretically)
If the utilitarian values the loss of someone else's finger truly equivalent to the pain the finger-loser would feel, then all that the mugger would need to get away with the interaction would be to ask for an amount of money less than the loss in value for breaking a promise. Thus, as long as they ask for an amount of money that would *not* normally cause them to break a promise (given the promise didn't precommit to not doing it if not given money) then they should be fine (which is a bit counterintuitive, but like... if they ask for too much money, the utilitarian will refuse.)
Of course, does the utilitarian even care about this amount of money? Theoretically, if the utilitarian cared about both parties truly equally, an amount of money transferred would not be a negative at all, and the utilitarian would be completely neutral on giving money away (or well, they would want to equal out money with anyone they met, to maximize diminishing returns?)
Perhaps they might value the money being with themself instead of the thief more, as they would be using the money for a better cause...
Anyways, in an actual practical scenario, the decision seems like it would come down to the exact value propositions of each person which would probably be different and not exactly perfectly aligned. It seems likely that in reality, the pain of losing a finger (F) would be far greater than the utilitarian's negative value proposition since it's real pain and not just a moral theory, and so F - D would be far greater than U - M, even if the money asked for was minimal.
I suppose that the fact that the game can be repeated can sort of screw things up. If only some small amount of money is sufficient, but a large amount is not, what's to stop the thief from immediately asking for the deal to be resolved again once it occurs successfully? I suppose actually this just requires the utilitarian to specify that the finger-cutter's promise should also include "and i won't do this again" since well, you can't keep holding the same threat up or the promise doesn't really become meaningful.
Edit: After thinking on this theory further (that whoever has more to gain from breaking their promise will do so) I no longer think it is a complete theory, there has to be something more to it. Consider this scenario.
Alice, Bob, and Charlie are playiing a board game. We will consider the value to be defined as "percentage chance to win the game" so it is well defined, unlike morality which is very much not.
At the start of the turn, all players are equally likely to win (33%).
Charlie has a way to win on the next turn, but Alice has a card that stops this.
So Alice threatens Bob, saying "if you don't give me half of your resources, I'll let Charlie win." (assume that resources are directly correlated with win% in this case.)
So Alice would stand to make the scenario 50% - 16% - 33%.
But Charlie has precommitted to not falling for these deals. If he indeed goes through with this, it will be 0% 0% 100% because Charlie will win.
So here, Alice stands to gain 33% by breaking her promise (she has a 1/3 chance of winning and she'd be giving that up.)
Meanwhile, Bob only stands to gain 16% by breaking his promise (if he gives in to the deal, he'll still have a 16% chance to win instead of nothing.)
So, by my theory, Alice would not be able to get away with the deal, since she stands to gain more by not going through with it.
But, say that instead Alice gives Bob all her resources (except what is needed to prevent Charlie from winning.)
Say this makes the game 0% - 66% - 33% - Alice has made it impossible for herself to win.
But now she makes a similar deal, asking for Bob to give her all those resources back, plus half of his original stuff.
Now, Bob still stands to gain 16% by going through with the deal, but Alice stands to gain nothing by letting Charlie win, as she has already given up everything - she has nothing to lose. Thus, by my theory, she would now be able to extort Bob.
This seems completely absurd. How could Alice give away resources to Bob and only through this be able to extort him? Something's gotta be wrong here.
I think this is a better demonstration of how any ideological system with which you can derive ought statements can be either demonstrated to be paradoxial OR can be exploited under arbitrarily specific circumstances.
I tried this recently and can confirm it works. I may have one less finger, but I have £10 more than I used to... now if only I were in the UK
As a utilitarian, I think the loss of a finger would absolutely be worse than a loss of £10 - however, by giving her the money, you’re setting a precedent that people can mug others by threatening to cut off their finger. So in the long-term, it would ultimately be a net gain to happiness to not give her the money
answered in the video
Is this not only a problem if other people know you are a utilitarian? If not, then the mugger is making a big gamble on this random person being a utilitarian. Maybe this argument shows that you should lie to everyone you know about being a utilitarian. EDIT: never mind, this was talked about in the next minute.
AHA! Yes! An utilitarian would decide not to inform individual that they are utilitarian because by doing that they avoid those problems which is more benefical than disclosing it in which case these issues could occur!
This vaguely reminds me of the Banshees of Inisherin with the "leave me alone or I cut off my fingers" bit
Instructions unclear, I lost all my fingers.
⚠️ WARNING: This method is to be performed only by trained counterparts in distant possible worlds. Do not try this at home. ⚠️
If you’re an act-utilitarian you could still believe that the best route is for the mugger to lose a finger because then that’s less resources (minus one finger) for the totality of bad-act-causing people.
This is also a great way of understanding asymmetric warfare and gorilla tactics. Where one side only cares for logistical might and the other cant possibly win on a level field. This may cost me a finger (small regimen) but youll lose 10$ (tanks, rations, equipment, etc.)
I mean, wouldn't the obvious and most utilitarian response be to recognize that the mugger is unwell and a danger to herself, especially if she's already followed through with cutting off 1 finger, and to help her get the professional help she needs.
shes seems more than willing to cut off her own finger so clearly it must make her happy so i say as an act utillitiarian that not giving them 10 pounds is actually the good thing in this instance and even if it didnt give her happiness the idea of sticking to her morals must give her a sense of happiness so it works out in the end trust me frfr
Replace the act of finger cutting with abortion.
@@user-zu1ix3yq2w based
"shes seems more than willing to cut off her own finger so clearly it must make her happy"
Real world experience with mental illness would strongly suggest otherwise.
1. It doesn't matter if the Mugger keeps the interaction secret. If she can find out about our values, others could, too.
2. It is indeed wise to not to announce one's utilitarianism. This could be true in general for any theory that can be exploited.
3. Agents who observe our repeated actions might be able to conclude that we are in fact behaving like utilitarians, even if we don't openly tell.
4. The issue strikes me as non-trivial and such exploitation might actually be rather common.
You got me. You were one step ahead the entire time lol
The bike meme explains this concept instantaneously.