Quote from: challengerX on December 05, 2014, 01:52:11 PM

Quote from: IcyWind on December 05, 2014, 01:50:51 PM

Quote from: challengerX on December 05, 2014, 01:49:04 PM

Quote from: IcyWind on December 05, 2014, 01:47:55 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on December 05, 2014, 01:44:41 PM

Fairly certain I had a dream about this once...

Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left.
May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.

Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.

One person suffering while everybody else leads perfect lives? It's simple mathematics.

Again - it's not a utopia in that case.

Technically, no.

But it's pretty damn close and that's good enough for me. Imagine. One person suffering and that's it. It'd be paradise.

But how long would the suffering remain only for the kid? Even in the utopia.

I'd presume until they die, or that they are eternally a child, in which case forever.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 05, 2014, 01:53:10 PM

Is it more or less cruel to stay in or leave the city?

It's crueler to stay because you're taking advantage of the kid's suffering.

Since you're choosing not to rescue the kid either way, some people could argue it'd be cruel to not stay in the city and at least derive some benefit from the suffering of the child.

Leaving the city is leaving the child to its fate, and making its suffering pointless. At least potentially.

I don't agree with this. Sure - life would be shit for people, but that doesn't mean that the group of people cannot begin anew and start a civilization once more.

You're moving the goalposts. The question is about whether you can ever have a moral trade-off between the subjugation of one party and the well-being of another, and where that threshold lies. In this scenario, this is the only way to achieve anything near to a utopia.

Let's not argue about the semantics of the situation. Assuming a utopia is defined as 1, this hypothetical world lies at 0.9 recurring. We're also assuming that reaching 1 isn't a possibility, and rescuing the child would reduce the net rating of the world.

Anybody who chooses to rescue the child is simply being irrational. Especially when you could just leave the city. However, this leads to the second question - which nobody has answered. Is it more or less cruel to stay in or leave the city?

If you leave, you obviously care about the child but wish to abandon rather than save. If you stay, you just don't care.

I'd argue both are equal.

Didn't say the new civilization would be a utopia, nor should it be. We'd only end up in the start once again.

So you'd destroy a utopia for the sake of a single suffering individual?

Yes

I find that to be, quite seriously, irrational.

It isn't a Utopia. Assuming this situation has been running for a long time, it doesn't seem like they've tried to address and solve the problem of this child.

If taking care of the kid results in average-ness overall, I'd rather have that than live in a "Utopia" of selfishness or leave and live with the constant guilt that I did nothing to change the situation there.

Quote from: SuperIrish on December 05, 2014, 02:12:22 PM

It isn't a Utopia. Assuming this situation has been running for a long time, it doesn't seem like they've tried to address and solve the problem of this child.

If taking care of the kid results in average-ness overall, I'd rather have that than live in a "Utopia" of selfishness or leave and live with the constant guilt that I did nothing to change the situation there.

So you'd be ok with making tons of people suffer instead of it being reduced to one person?

Just because it's not a Utopia, does not necessarily mean that now everyone's in the shit.

And I find your position to be as well.

You see why we are polar opposites.

To me this really highlights the distinction between liberals and conservatives/libertarians. While we generally place our stock into civil liberties, you do so in the prevention of suffering and unfairness.

In this instance, whereby you'd expect a conservative/libertarian to decry it and a liberal to support it, it has been switched. The presence of suffering has turned liberals largely against the idea, whereas the preservation of order and sanctity has turned conservatives in its support.

What a delicate situation this hypothetical world is in. It clearly wasn't a Utopia in the first place if taking care of an impoverished child has sent this world to hell.

I've already dealt with the semantics. Trying to paint it as "not really a utopia" doesn't change the behavioural realities of this hypothetical world. You could call it a dystopia, if you want but the equilibrium remains the same.

Fuck the "utopia".  Child goes free.  We figure things out from there.

Quote

Assuming a utopia is defined as 1, this hypothetical world lies at 0.9 recurring.

m8
._____.

I know that it'd be equal to 1.

You know what I fucking mean.

I'm beginning to think utilitarian ethics aren't all they're cut out to be, maybe I'm just dumb.

To be absolutely perfectly honest, consequentialism necessitates utilitarianism. Consequentialism, also, is the only foundation for moral thinking.

The problem with utilitarianism is when you try and make it mathematical, as Jeremy Bentham did. Then it becomes, quite literally, autistic.

Quote from: SexyPiranha on December 05, 2014, 02:43:13 PM

I'm beginning to think utilitarian ethics aren't all they're cut out to be, maybe I'm just dumb.

To be absolutely perfectly honest, consequentialism necessitates utilitarianism. Consequentialism, also, is the only foundation for moral thinking.

The problem with utilitarianism is when you try and make it mathematical, as Jeremy Bentham did. Then it becomes, quite literally, autistic.

i didn't think of that.

given some flexibility it does seem far more reasonable to me. I'm still quite undecided on the child though. . .