[why_at]

I get what you mean. Whenever I read one of these scenarios that tries to show some absurd conclusion about a moral theory like utilitarianism, it makes me wonder if there is something about the outlandishness of the situation that makes it hard for our mental heuristics to work properly. In this case it's the idea that Bentham is a perfect act utilitarian, that the mugger will 100% follow through on his promise, that it won't affect anything else in the future besides the immediate suffering etc.

That said, I am doing my best to come up with an example that avoids the problem you mention. If we can imagine a utopia society where everyone is a perfect act utilitarian except the mugger, and all resources are distributed in a totally fair way such that any $10 will buy much less utility than saving a finger, the mugger's tactic would be harder to avoid.

I think the problem I still have with this is that it's basically saying that it's possible for a jerk to take advantage of a bunch of nice people, which isn't that interesting of a conclusion.

[tuatoru]

> scenario that tries to show some absurd conclusion about a moral theory

So, the trolley problem? "Philosophy is bunk".