Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
No, the context is correct. I would let the house burn rather than sentence someone to death for it. It's just a house.
|
So, the preservation of life is your absolute maximal value? Preserve life in all cases?
Or is it just in this situation, where the value of the life is being compared to the value of the house? If it's the latter, what is it about the life that makes it more valuable than the house? I.e., what is the criteria that makes one thing more valuable than another (whether it be a house, a human life, a non-human life, or something else entirely)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
Classic utilatarianism though doesnt care about property beyond its ability to cause 'happiness' to the population, the classic utilatrian arguement would be 'does saving the building cause more happiness than keeping the bomber alive?'
|
I'm not sure if you're saying that this is your answer. If it is, my question is what you mean by causing increased happiness for the population. Do you mean that you want everyone to be happier on average?
Or do you mean we should determine what will increase the total happiness in the world - that is to say, you'd conclude that a situation with 5 billion people on earth who are only happy 20% of the time is better than a situation with 1 billion people on earth who are happy 90% of the time?