How Utilitarian Are You? Measure on The Oxford Utilitarianism Scale. Answer these 9 questions to see where you fall on the Utilitarian Scale. Scores are for your own interest and will not be used for research purposes. For each question, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements below.
post yours
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk
Other urls found in this thread:
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk
twitter.com
39
Is that wrong?
28
Bullshit test, obviously if doing X immoral thing is the ONLY way to save everyone then you have to do it but that doesn't make you a utilitarian, it makes you a non-imbecile, and in practice I would NEVER agree to things like torturing innocents, no matter how sure people were it would save lives, because real life is never 100% certain.
Christians and Kantians will not agree with your first statement.
Because they're imbeciles.
>I'm so retardedly ignorant on this topic that I won't even concede that other moral systems actually exist, people are just either utilitarian or they're stupid.
Utilitarians are also imbeciles, imbecile.
And yet you agree with them.
>I can't read!
Imbecile.
>blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk
49
Surprised by how high that is, considering what I put in.
21
>obviously if doing X immoral thing is the ONLY way to save everyone then you have to do it
>then you have to do it
Retard.
Try reading to the end of the line next time, imbecile.
>choosing a utilitarian outcome doesn't make you a utilitarian though, because I say so
Retard.
>And yet you agree with them.
>agree
Oh you agree with me now? What changed your mind?
There can not be 100% certainty that an innocent person will be not convicted for crime that he did not commit. Things like that are actually happens. So,should we stop punish people?
...
>So,should we stop punish people?
Yes.
>Sometimes it is morally necessary for innocent people to die as collateral damage—if more people are saved overall.
This is how army works.
Most people consider collateral damage to be necessary, but not moral. It's a necessary evil, at best.
>Oxford
I'm a pretty esteemed utilitarian and you should be too, empathy for people with no potential is a simply barbarian idea.
This is just semantics though. The consequences are the same regardless of whether it's morally necessary or a necessary evil.
>It is permissible to torture an innocent person if this would be necessary to provide information to prevent a bomb going off that would kill hundreds of people
how would an "innocent" person have this information and wouldn't be willing to give it freely to stop a bomb going off?
If you consider collateral damage to be a necessary evil then you're not going to answer yes to a question that frames it as a moral necessity.
That's true I guess, but I was talking about it in general terms.
Muslims are always innocent when performing jihad.
31
truly a radical centrist in all aspects
You just have to assume it's true, same as you have to assume there is a 100% certainty that the torture will save lives.
15
30
This is stupid though. It's just simple math, hurt 1 person you don't care about to save 2 people you don't care about? Sure, why not. But i would kill all 3 of them for a person I do care about.
>Get 9
>You might be Peter Singer
I think the test is borked. I have very "anti" utilitarian views and disagreed with all.