How many deaths would have been an acceptable price for abolition of slavery?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I wasn't talking in an economic sense...

well, then, it's worse than I thought.  (actually, it was obvious that you weren't talking in an economic sense but I was being generous)  Since you're willing to bring it up:  If you're not measuring the economy of it, you must be trying to put a price on the intrinsic value of a human life vis-a-vis political goals. 

That's some serious Che Guevara shit right there.  ("¡¿Qué vale la vida de un hombre cuando está en peligro el futuro de la humanidad?!")  I'll wash my hands of this whole sordid business and leave it to the rest of you to figure out that price.

Believing that people should be pragmatic and try to reduce and avoid human suffering as much as possible is worse then valuing human lives merely by economic output? Your definition of reprehensible is f**ked up.

You do realize the most effective way to end human suffering is to kill all humans, right?

Death is kind of a bad thing, though. And it also ends all good things in life.

Why is death a bad thing? Dead people don't suffer (unless you believe in hell, which I don't think you do), so obviously it can't be on account of suffering.

An end to consciousness. Not existing is kind of awful. It prevents feeling anything. No love, no care, no pleasure, no drive. Nothing.

[Murica!]

I wasn't talking in an economic sense...

well, then, it's worse than I thought.  (actually, it was obvious that you weren't talking in an economic sense but I was being generous)  Since you're willing to bring it up:  If you're not measuring the economy of it, you must be trying to put a price on the intrinsic value of a human life vis-a-vis political goals. 

That's some serious Che Guevara shit right there.  ("¡¿Qué vale la vida de un hombre cuando está en peligro el futuro de la humanidad?!")  I'll wash my hands of this whole sordid business and leave it to the rest of you to figure out that price.

Believing that people should be pragmatic and try to reduce and avoid human suffering as much as possible is worse then valuing human lives merely by economic output? Your definition of reprehensible is f**ked up.

You do realize the most effective way to end human suffering is to kill all humans, right?

Death is kind of a bad thing, though. And it also ends all good things in life.

Why is death a bad thing? Dead people don't suffer (unless you believe in hell, which I don't think you do), so obviously it can't be on account of suffering.

An end to consciousness. Not existing is kind of awful. It prevents feeling anything. No love, no care, no pleasure, no drive. Nothing.

That's really logically inconsistent, just fyi.

[Person Man]

What about abortion?

[MasterJedi]

What was the entire population of the slave states during the civil war? That would be my answer for anyone who refused to accept the abolition of slavery.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What's next? "How many deaths would have been an acceptable price for ending the Holocaust?"

[mencken]

What was the entire population of the slave states during the civil war? That would be my answer for anyone who refused to accept the abolition of slavery.

Including the slave population?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just tore apart utilitarianism in the class I teach. I'm grateful I got this opportunity.

[Intell]

I just tore apart utilitarianism in the class I teach. I'm grateful I got this opportunity.

You teach a class?

[Torie]

More well, real, would be a question about how many deaths are worth it to make slavery end earlier. I mean, a billion deaths to make slavery end a week earlier, is not worth it, to concoct an extreme hypothetical.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just tore apart utilitarianism in the class I teach. I'm grateful I got this opportunity.

You teach a class?

Sort of. I teach discussion sections for a class with a lecture+discussion format.

[White Trash]

What was the entire population of the slave states during the civil war? That would be my answer for anyone who refused to accept the abolition of slavery.

Yikes, that's a little harsh don't ya think? Don't get me wrong, I abhor slavery and it really is a dark mark on Southern (and American) history. But would killing every last man, woman and child in the South be worth ending it?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I just tore apart utilitarianism in the class I teach. I'm grateful I got this opportunity.

Really? How?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just tore apart utilitarianism in the class I teach. I'm grateful I got this opportunity.

Really? How?

I didn't have to do much, honestly. Mostly I just opened it up for discussion and the students came up with the most relevant remarks themselves. Occasionally I asked some follow-up questions to nudge them.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I just tore apart utilitarianism in the class I teach. I'm grateful I got this opportunity.

Really? How?

I didn't have to do much, honestly. Mostly I just opened it up for discussion and the students came up with the most relevant remarks themselves. Occasionally I asked some follow-up questions to nudge them.

I'm not convinced it was as much of a "tearing apart" as you think.

Or maybe actual utilitarianism isn't what I think it is. I don't put the most scrutiny into labels for this kind of thing.

[Beet]

I'm not enough of a utilitarian to justify taking someone else's life, which is what this question amounts to. If, for instance, I were to rephrase the question with the caveat that if your answer to this question is at least one life, then it is your life that will be taken first, people in this thread would be a lot less gung ho. Yet you are all willing to sacrifice other people's lives.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Or maybe actual utilitarianism isn't what I think it is. I don't put the most scrutiny into labels for this kind of thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially, it's the theory that good consists in maximizing aggregate pleasure.

Most of my students could see what the problems with this theory are. I'm curious if you can.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm not enough of a utilitarian to justify taking someone else's life, which is what this question amounts to. If, for instance, I were to rephrase the question with the caveat that if your answer to this question is at least one life, then it is your life that will be taken first, people in this thread would be a lot less gung ho. Yet you are all willing to sacrifice other people's lives.

Yes, no one here would give up their own life, along with millions of others, for the saving of millions from slavery for hundreds of years.

[America Needs R'hllor]

What was the entire population of the slave states during the civil war? That would be my answer for anyone who refused to accept the abolition of slavery.

Yikes, that's a little harsh don't ya think? Don't get me wrong, I abhor slavery and it really is a dark mark on Southern (and American) history. But would killing every last man, woman and child in the South be worth ending it?

Only those who continued forcibly resisting the abolition, of course. Otherwise it's genocide. But yeah, anyone who kept fighting and couldn't be contained by jail, I think it's reasonable.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Or maybe actual utilitarianism isn't what I think it is. I don't put the most scrutiny into labels for this kind of thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially, it's the theory that good consists in maximizing aggregate pleasure.

Most of my students could see what the problems with this theory are. I'm curious if you can.

You're aware that "pleasure" is a lot more broad then just food, sex, etc, right?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Or maybe actual utilitarianism isn't what I think it is. I don't put the most scrutiny into labels for this kind of thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially, it's the theory that good consists in maximizing aggregate pleasure.

Most of my students could see what the problems with this theory are. I'm curious if you can.

You're aware that "pleasure" is a lot more broad then just food, sex, etc, right?

Yes.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Or maybe actual utilitarianism isn't what I think it is. I don't put the most scrutiny into labels for this kind of thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially, it's the theory that good consists in maximizing aggregate pleasure.

Most of my students could see what the problems with this theory are. I'm curious if you can.

You're aware that "pleasure" is a lot more broad then just food, sex, etc, right?

Yes.

So, tell me, what is your problem with it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not that I'm big on discussion of "rights", but utilitarianism doesn't consider them, human dignity, or any of our other pre-modern occupations. Such things tend to get in the way of "progress" and March Toward the Future.