#utilitarianism

Do the Means lead to some other negative End, in addition to the intended one? The classical example of the naïve utilitarian doctor who kills a patient in order to harvest their organs and save five patients, in practice, if accepted, leads to general loss of trust in doctors and hospitals and therefore to much greater loss of life; hence, doctors should follow a hard rule of not killing patients to harvest their organs, even if this might save more lives in the shortest term.

Are the Means necessary in order to achieve the End? The negative utility of atrocious Means still ends up in the final account along with the supposed positive utility of the End (and without the penalty for uncertainty that the latter should arguably be given). The Means are as much part of the final state as the End.

I agree with this on its face.

But here's the thing: certain quirks indicate a high likelihood of wanting to do something that is harmful. Someone believing that they are a dragon, it would seem, is much more likely to have the delusion that they can fly, which comes with obvious hazards, or that when they breathe on raw meat they're cooking it (or the eating-virgins thing you mentioned, I suppose). That is, unless they believe they're actually a dragon but somehow live exactly as a human, which is incoherent unless it's a more abstract spiritual sort of belief (which a lot of the time I suppose is the case for otherkin), to which I have about the same attitude as I do to most religious beliefs which is standing for tolerance of them but to some degree regretting their prevalence and certainly bristling if I'm required to give positive affirmation of them.

(Compare to Sam Harris and others arguing, in the context of free will and ethics -type discussions, that character/intentions/motivations matter when we compute moral judgments, because while in themselves they don't decrease utility, they are indicators of whether a person is likely to do a utility-decreasing thing. Also compare to the general verdict around Chickengate -- I'm referring to an explosion in rat Tumblr discourse instigated by Nostalgebraist during my earliest years here (can't remember if you were also around) about how we should judge someone knowing that they f***ed a dead chicken, the idea being that while the act doesn't directly do harm, it indicates something about the person doing it that suggests they might do harm in other ways.)

A variation on the above: even if for most individuals an untrue or incoherent belief isn't leading them to do harm, I (and I think most other people) generally see beliefs in falsehoods as a Bad Thing compared to beliefs in truths and want to increase the latter at the expense of the former within society.

After seeing it for the first time, I love it, there's so much fun to be had and I think who the ultimately film frames as in the wrong is completely the right choice. The emotional payoff is right on the money, and I can't wait to rewatch it again when it's more available to catch all the cleaver things I missed the first time. That being said the very ending has something that bothers me. Spoilers follow

I am diagnosed with ASPD. Some of you may know it as "sociopathy" in my case. I'm a bit of an outlier (comorbid BPD) but I still share all the classic textbook symptoms. In any case, I've noticed that like... I have morals. Not in the sort of "I must do the right thing!" or the empathetic way, but in a sort of purely utilitarian, logical sense. Like, I'd probably do a lot of bad stuff if it lacked consequence. Not to just me, but the greater good (which includes me. Self-serving uber alles, really.)

For example, a really small example. Let's say that I am a car mechanic, and that I get this car in, and I see that the issue is a small, quick fix. But I'm stupid, I'm greedy so I go "Ma'am, your car needs the entire transmission to be RIPPED OUT. Like, if you drive another MILE in this thing you're gonna die." All this big talk, and I put it in the parking lot and call her in 3 months and charge her 3000 dollars. (numbers and ideas freshly squeezed from my ass, I got no idea what a mechanic is like I've always done it myself.) Sure, I got that money. But people aren't idiots. Sooner or later someone will see the bullshit. Then they review me, people start thinking critically about my services, and sooner or later I'm being sued. On top of that, think about them. I just charged them 3000 for a 120 buck job. Where could that 2980 other dollars have gone? Into the system, eventually to be fed back into my wealth. And not just in the classical sense of "net worth" but rather how nice it is to live. Those 2980 dollars could've gone into a business idea that could've soared and made life a hell of a lot easier to me. Improved the economy. Whatever. But no, I had to be a stupid, foul IDIOT who scams people. All theoretical, of course. I don't do this shit because this is so god damn stupid. Why would you do a "bad thing"? It literally never benefits anybody in the long run. Sure, short-term you might feel powerful, have the big bucks, whatever, but sooner or later that shit is gonna backfire, and it's gonna blow your head off.

Don't do dumb things, kids.

I guess my point is, ethics and morals exist for a reason. They aren't just some god given rules to follow, they make a ton of sense and always benefit you (in the long run, if you aren't a moron) I'm not driven by empathy, I really don't care about other people. Not like in a edgy, "I hate people" way but I just don't really feel a lot when it comes to other people. I do enjoy engaging with people, but its almost always on a pure entertainment level, rather than any sort of deep connection. I help people, too. I'll always be there for my friends (at least, I was there... a different topic.) because in the end to do wrong by them is to do wrong by yourself. I've ended up in this boat where I'm thinking about "what is for the greater good?" and it always ends up in the conclusion "do the right thing." Bit of a long one.