Posted on 18 March 2017 - 10:06 PM

I am making this thread for anyone who wishes to discuss philosophy with me as I find it quite interesting. Please be serious if you decide to post on here. Anything philosophical is good also.

Last edited on 18 March 2017 - 11:53 PM by Jmqcc

I LOVE philosophy.

OK so I've been thinking about the utilitarian theory and how it effects minority groups. Say a certain decision has to be made periodically. If the decision maker chooses A, it greatly benefits the majority, but is terrible for the minority. If the decision maker chooses B, it's vice versa. Now if the decision maker was a loyal follower of the utilitarian theory he would always choose decision A, but would that still be morally correct? Would it be fair to choose B sometimes, so the minority wouldnt always be suffering? Or is it just better to have the majority always be happy. Having the majority always be happy would technicallay be the greatest good for the greatest number, but there is the matter of fairness. Should fairness even be taken into account? Does it matter?

Posted on 19 March 2017 - 09:19 AM

You bring an interesting point, I feel a large amount of people would say keep group A happy because yes the are the majority however that is not always right. I do believe the decision maker should choose group B sometimes because they deserve to be happy and not suffering constantly. Having the majority always happy is not specifically a good thing for all situations, The majority can always be argued for being bad and wrong against the other group so that must be taken into account.
When you bring up the matter of fairness and whether it should be taken, Yes I believe so. To make things fair is simply human nature and people will most likely not ignore it all the time. You would have to argue what fairness even is to make the question be fully answered as well.
There is no easy answer to what fairness is, but that is something, not nothing. Fairness in taxes, like all notions of fairness, is a social concept and the answer must be arrived at through interactions with others. Some things are simply unfair. Even children know that. I would also like to remind you not to confuse fairness with equality as they are different concepts. Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is treating everyone the same. Equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help
You can also be willed to argue that morals play a role in people's choices of what is and is not fair to them and everyone else. This scenario is an example of a moral dilemma. This is when a person is put into a situation where they must make a moral decision. A moral decision is a choice made based on a person's ethics, manners, character and what they believe is proper behavior.
I may have strayed a bit from the original question however, I do think that fairness should be taken into consideration when making choices like this. I hope my answer was sufficient.
You can always pm me if you wish to talk more in depth.

Posted on 19 March 2017 - 12:58 PM

You're implying that the same people will always be in group A or group B, when in reality you will sometimes be a minority and sometimes a majority. Your logic also disregards the severity of the 'suffering' or 'profiting'.

Posted on 19 March 2017 - 03:30 PM

Let me bring up another question. Would doing something that is favored by the majority group A be considered morally right simply because it is favored by more people? If you can supress one minority group (B), does it even matter if all that is left are a group of people that favored what has been done?

Posted on 19 March 2017 - 10:42 PM

We'll say that decision only affects group A and B, and no other overlapping groups. We'll also say that the suffering of one person in one group is a direct opposite to the suffering for a person in the othet group. In other words their "happiness value" are direct opposites. Not that it can really be measured, but for the sake of philosophical discussion that's what we'll say.

Posted on 19 March 2017 - 10:49 PM

They don't just favor it, they get affected by it. One of the groups in a positive way, and the other in a negative way. From the Utilitarian view it would be better to have the larger group happy and the smaller group unhappy rather than the opposite. "The greatest good for the greatest number." For a one time decision, I think it's morally correct to choose A. Better have more people happy, rather than less. But if the decision has to be made periodically? That's when things get tricky.

Posted on 19 March 2017 - 10:58 PM

Last edited on 20 March 2017 - 10:40 AM by Jmqcc

I misread that as spook logic and got offended.