Is utilitarianism a Jow Forums approved philosophy?

its ok to gang rape a women if 10 people enjoy it and only 1 person doesn't

Uhh I thought being utilitarian was the goal of getting things that are useful as opposed to stylish

No. The fact you think that shows what a confused shithole this place has become.

that's the colloquial (wrong) definition

I think its trying to parody the deontological position of the trolley dilemma. If one looks at that problem from a different, less abstract position say that of a doctor with five patients that all need a different organ transplant with no available organ donors within the vicinity and a healthy but unwilling universal donor that's currently unconscious, the utilitarian position suddenly takes on a more sinister veneer.

>To shoot a person about to blow up the world may very well be an immoral act according to a categorical imperative (killing is wrong), but that does not mean it would not be justified, as a reasoned deontolocial position.
So basically deontological positions are correct as long as you ignore them when they're not?
>OTOH a utilitarian argument can be made that one is morally justified to kill 100,000 people in order to save 100,001, since the consequentialist result (regardless of reason) creates the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people given the circumstance.
What's wrong with that? Consequentialist ethics, by definition, must consider the circumstances. A utilitarian would shoot the nuke guy without a second thought, no need to, you know, make an exception to a categorical imperative. That sounds like the position of reason to me.

See

Isnt that the bike cuck philosophy?

It is if you hate yourself.

utilitarianism is fucking cancer and it leads to Antinatalism do the world a favor NOW

Attached: do it keston.jpg (259x194, 5K)

utilitarianism is the ideology of the slave

Clearly I've stumbled into big brain territory. (Academic philosophical terms)

Most people would risk themselves to save one other person though, not only to save more than one. I'd risk my life to save a kid. This conversation seems to veer more on the what if it was Hitler hanging from a cliff sort of thing. Or what if one innocent child was to die but if I stopped the metaphorical train and changed tracks it would save the kid but kill 100000 ppl one of them Hitler (or 100000 Jews and I saved Hitler depending on your pol mind)

Well clearly you save the 100000. The only alternative is you superhero out of the situation and save everyone. Or throw some pennies on the rail and blow that whole fucking train or retarded logic.

Absolutely not.

>If one looks at that problem from a different, less abstract position say that of a doctor with five patients that all need a different organ transplant with no available organ donors within the vicinity and a healthy but unwilling universal donor that's currently unconscious, the utilitarian position suddenly takes on a more sinister veneer
Not necessarily. If the five patients are all old people who aren't gonna last another decade anyway and the healthy person is a little kid, you'll probably not want to do that.

Fpbp

All things being equal in both scenarios would you butcher the unwilling donor for sake of the five? Keep in mind they will die if you don't, if you do you won't suffer any legal repercussions. If not, how is the scenario I propose any different from the trolley?

Moral relativsm is the only tjing consistently proven right.

You mean barring any other variables? Sure, why not?