I propose a new law. If the victim of a murder is someone who owns a fortune more than 1000x the median household income, then someone on trial for the murder can make an affirmative defense that it was ok, simply because, "he needed killin.'"

Literally, if you can convince the jury that the guy had it coming, you get off Scott free. Anyone who wants to avoid potentially being killed and having their killer escape unpunished can avoid this fate by simply not hoarding wealth over the critical threshold. Those who hoard such fortunes will just have to live with enough kindness that no one could ever convince a jury that they deserved to die. We'll end up with no billionaires or every billionaire becoming like Fred Rogers. I'll take either outcome.

And nobody will miss him.

The thing that Neoliberals will grow to understand very quickly as material conditions worsen; is that FDR was not the savior of the working class. He was the savior of the capitalist FROM the working class. And right now, there isn't an FDR to be found.

Did you see what they were wearing?!?

BREAKING NEWS: "Fun" CEO beaten to death with frozen pizzas. The pizzas were delivered warm, so the police suspect premeditated intent in freezing the pizzas for use as a blunt, deadly instrument. The CEO's customary grave-pissing will start, contingent on finding a suitable ditch.

Yeah... I'm hoping the other inmates give them the Luigi "Careful, he's a hero" treatment.

Utilitarianism as a philosophy is basically the acknowledgement that life is messy and trying to come up with universal rules of behaviour for all scenarios is basically impossible. So they essentially went "fuck it" and came up with a philosophy that revels in the fact that it has no regard for nuance or situational contingencies.

Anybody who actually lived like that would be a monumental pain in the arse.

I don't remember where exactly, but I've encountered an hybrid approach that balances utilitarianism with deontology. It goes something like this:

1. Generally do what brings the most utility. But...
2. People have "deontological protections" - basic human rights that you are not allowed to infringe upon even if it is for the greater good. But...
3. One's deontological protections can be bypassed if said "greater good" is solving a mess they are responsible for.

Take, for example, the case of a mass shooter. Utilitarianism says you are allowed to take them down if that's the only way to save their victims. Naive deontology says you are not allowed to kill whatsoever. The approach I've just presented says that we can go with utilitarianism in this case - but only because the shooter is one responsible for this mess so it's okay to harm them for the greater good.

Note that it does not say it's okay to kill them otherwise. If you manage to capture them, an other lives are no longer in risk, both deontology and utilitarianism will agree you are not allowed to kill them.

Let's go back to the classic Trolley Problem. Is the person tied to the second track responsible for the situation? No - they are a victim. They are not stripped from their deontological protection, and therefore you are not allowed to sacrifice them in order to save the other five.

Back to the case in hand. We need to ask the following questions:

• Does the suffering of the employees outweigh the life of the CEO?
• Does the death of the CEO stop the suffering of the employees?
• Is the CEO responsible for the suffering of the employees?

If the answer to all three questions is "yes" - then what's the problem?

My stance on that example is that it is consistent with utilitarianism to not harvest healthy people because the mere act of doing so causes harm to all the other healthy people that weren't harvested in the for of fear that they could be at some later point down the line.

I can't side with utilitarianism for the example of killing a healthy person to harvest organs for multiple dying patients.

That's because utilitarianism has a silent other half to the problem, which is something like confidence.

Can you judge the value of one life against another? Can you do it with accurate assessment of your own perception? How much harm is introduced to the equation if you're wrong? How likely are you wrong?

Killing one healthy person to save 5 others doesn't meet the utilitarian standard because you're destroying one innocent life for parts. Parts that could maybe save others... But you can put a price on organs. You can't undo the harm of killing someone

In fact, even considering it isn't utilitarian. The time and energy spent on weighing the value of a life vs the value of the meat should be spent on looking for solutions

Even if there is no other solution no human can truly know that...

But sometimes the numbers do become statistics. Like the trolley problem... There is a very predictable result, if you knew of a way to stop the trolley there's no need for considering it, and you have to make a snap decision. You have to weigh their lives against each other, knowing you have limited knowledge

But the more people on one set of tracks, the easier that math becomes. There's no line - it's all subjective. They're not numbers, they're people... But the bigger the number disparity, the easier it is to answer the question

And pulling the lever is competence check too. How sure are you that you understand the situation properly? Because maybe everything is fine, and you're about to get someone killed out of your own stupidity

And to bring it all home... One life sure as hell isn't worth the suffering and death of tens of millions. That's easy math.

But is the situation that simple? Would the killing of one actually save millions? I sure as hell don't know. It's very situational

So if someone else pulls the lever I think it's perfectly ethical to support them, hoping that their judgement is correct, while also not being confident enough to ever pull the lever yourself

Lol accurate af though

I'd find this guy innocent too.