Quick question on Utilitarianism: Philosophy Forums

Quick question on Utilitarianism

yasseford
Almost Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 52

Posted 07/13/09 - 05:57 AM: Subject: Quick question on Utilitarianism	#1
Utilitarianism says that the action that benefits the most people is the best. Does this mean that an action's nature of being good or bad changes with time? For example, suppose that someone invents a medicine that cures cancer. Within 2 years, all cancer is eliminated from the world. However, five years later, it is found that this medicine turns people into blood-thirsty monsters that wreak havoc on the rest of humanity, eventually leading to its extinction. Was the act of creating this medicine good after it eliminated cancer, and then bad after it led to the extinction of mankind? Was it always bad?
Yasseford

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 260

Posted 07/13/09 - 07:12 AM:	#2
Yes, good things at one time can be bad things at another time.
thanatos

Harbinger
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 07, 2005

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 12

Posted 07/13/09 - 04:22 PM:	#3
The effect of the medicine was good, just the side effect was bad. Most people don't get cancer so, unless the side effect of this medicine turned people into raging hulks with super powers, they would hardly present a threat to the human race. But, unlike most medicine which work against nature, this medicine would have ultimately resulted in the deaths of millions of people predisposed to cancer, thereby preventing them from passing their dangerous genes on to others. That would be a good thing too, if you follow the utilitarian definition of a good thing. Edited by Harbinger on 07/25/09 - 10:08 AM. Reason: grammar
I know not what I am, only that I am.

hauntme
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2009
Location: Scotland

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 9

Posted 07/24/09 - 09:33 AM:	#4
That's one of its main problems, it's hard to predict the consequences, but the examples given to prove this are usually quite fanciful.

yasseford
Almost Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 52

Posted 08/31/09 - 09:47 PM:	#5
Sorry to re-open this discussion so long after its inception, but I had a thought. Let's label the creation of the medicine as Event A; the terrorizing of mankind by the mutated beasts as Event B I know it's hard to simply label a slice of space-time as an event, especially when we're talking about whether the event is good or bad, but given utilitarianism, this approach seems acceptable. Clearly Event B is a bad thing in the eyes of a utilitarian, as all of mankind is suffering. Event A made Event B possible, so the good or bad of Event B must be taken into account when judging Event A. Do you see the problem here? Whatever we label Event B, we must label Event A. If we are to view the world through this linear event causation, then we can definitively say that because events that happened millenia ago made our present state of affairs possible, whatever judgment we place on our current state of affairs must also be placed on events that occurred millenia ago. This is an impractical way to look at history, and yet I see no other way to judge events under utilitarianism than as such.
Yasseford

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.