[bambax]

Utilitarianism assumes we have all the facts, yet we never do. We talk of "saving" lives but that's incorrect: no life is ever "saved"; the inevitable moment of death can be postponed a little -- and with unforeseeable consequences.

Utilitarianism and its more recent avatars like "effective altruism" intends to replace moral questioning with math from elementary school. The world doesn't work that way. Never has, never will.

(It's also quite perverse, because there's this underlying assumption/insult that if you're not utilitarian, then it means you don't quite understand that 5>1, and therefore you're beyond stupid and shouldn't be part of the conversation.)

[bhickey]

> Utilitarianism assumes we have all the facts, yet we never do.

All the facts, while helpful, are not necessary for utilitarianism.

> "effective altruism"

I think you're attacking a straw man. You won't find Peter Singer attacking people for engaging in suboptimal charity.

> there's this underlying assumption/insult that if you're not utilitarian, then it means you don't quite understand that 5>1, and therefore you're beyond stupid and shouldn't be part of the conversation.

You can certainly say you'd sacrifice five to save one, but you need to back it up. The moral indulgence critique says, more or less, if you refuse to do it because you don't want to do something distasteful you're being a coward, not stupid.

Rule utilitarians can coherently refuse to pull the switch. I happen to disagree with their moral framework, but they can mount a vigorous defense of the position. Personally I come down hard on the side of rejecting the status quo bias. Commiting to symmetry in moral decision making is useful for avoiding contradictions. I also don't care much for act utilitarianism, since it's susceptible to non-utilitarians putting their fingers on the scale (ex. "buy this magazine or we'll shoot this dog".)

[bambax]

> you're being a coward, not stupid

It would seem the whole setup of the experiment is designed to rule out personal courage. The question isn't "would you fight a terrorist" to save five people, or would you climb a dangerous mountain, or swim a violent stream, or defeat some incel with a machine gun...

The question is "would you flip a switch", and the subtext is "with zero risk to yourself". How does flipping a switch become an act of courage and not flipping an act of cowardice.

Also, movies. I don't think there's one (successful) movie where the hero voluntarily and coldly sacrifices even one completely innocent and unrelated individual, in order to save any number of people. When the hero kills someone, every movie goes to great lengths to explain that person somehow deserved it or was an enemy.

In movies, it's the villains who are utilitarians. That should tell us something.

[twiceaday]

I don't watch many movies but in the ending of the Spiderman video game (Spoilers:) there is a deadly virus going around and aunt May is on her deathbed from it. Spiderman gets just enough antiserum to save her or to study it and make more but she will not live long enough for that. It's an emotional scene and they don't weasel out of it by having her decide for him, or giving some signs that she wouldn't make it. He ultimately gives the vial to a doctor and the scene fades as he is crying on his knees over aunt May in her hospital bed.

https://youtu.be/Q3hAt1uWo8M?si=7JdVISScles5PPKD

[bhickey]

You're responding to something I didn't say.

> The moral indulgence critique says, more or less, if you refuse to do it because you don't want to do something distasteful you're being a coward, not stupid.