Obviously the argument has it's issues, and there have certainly been better alternatives postulated regarding what the right thing to do should be. Given the circumstances that Mills puts you in I'm simply viewing the best economical outcome in terms of utility. I had said so in the beginning that there are obviously better outcomes to either scenario-- the simple point is that Mills has designed the scenarios (or at least designed them with the intention) for you to consider utility, and the utility alone in terms of a choice between two negative outcomes. The implications have never been about looking past the obvious. Anyone is capable of doing that. In a real situation involving any of these variables death isn't even an obvious consideration. The ideal scenario is that you're placed in a situation where either one or many have to die, suffer, go hungry, aren't cured, etc. From such a bare outcome, you are asked to consider what the greater good would be.
So when did you figure out that you don't like black people?
Well, what I was implying was: What makes a society "normal" to begin with?
Why doesn't Sean Paul use ENGLISH!?
Truly I tell you, the worst feeling in the world is having to poop after taking a shower. I mean, what was the point?
What is a societal bound though?
There's still the issue of screening for risk factors. Some studies have found that alcohol abuse and susceptibility to abuse and other negative effects are highly correlated to genetic and hereditary factors. We'd essentially be denying some people a freedom based on their genetic inheritance, if further tests demonstrated a causal nature between heredity and alcohol abuse. Also, suspending a license and assuming that will do something is rather naive. Thousands of people drive without a license everyday without consequence, junkies find a way to get high in rehab, and most importantly speak-easies found ways to get people drunk during prohibition. Realistically speaking, a piece of paper that states that the government has deemed a person fit to drink after they have met a certain criteria isn't going to prevent those that don't "qualify" from consuming alcohol.
The scenarios are actually philosophical as opposed to psychological, and are meant to convey the ethical stance that Utilitarianism postulated by Mills in 1861. The basic stance that he takes is that the most morally capable action is the one that yields the greatest amount of utility (i.e. good for all or the best possible outcome). It's quite sad really that the scenario is designed for you to choose between 2 morally conflicting outcomes; death to 4 or death to 1. In most cases, and as the situation allots, I'm quite comfortable with the inevitable death of 1 person as opposed to 4 people. It was typical of Mills to place the reader in inescapable issues that forced one of the two choices, never allowing for something like using a car to help slow the trolley down. In most cases they're just too unrealistic to actually expect. Which brings me to the second scenario. The second scenario has sort of been warped from the more universal model used. In the case of the scenario that's posted there's to ridiculous of an outcome-- I mean who pushes a fat man in hopes it will stop or slow a trolley? The real version of the story goes like this: You and a group of people are touring an ocean cave at low tide, but before you're able to leave at the end of the tour a fat man gets stuck in the entrance. The tide is rising and if the fat man is not removed everyone including the fat man will die. Someone happens to have a stick of dynamite that can be used to blow the fat man up and free up the entrance. But of course the fat man dies, and again Mills has you choose between the death of one or the death of many plus that one. And again I'm comfortable with sacrificing the one. EDIT TO THE ABOVE: The man is too fat to be dislodged, and the cave is sturdy enough to support the blast of dynamite (the explosion won't kill anyone bu the fat man). Yes, it is ridiculous because if the fat man can't get out how did he get in in the first place, etc. So why am I fine with such a cold calculation? Many of you feel that an inevitable death that has occurred due to an action of other intentions would "haunt your conscience" or you see yourself as not one to trifle with fate. But the idea here is that we're not only morally responsible for our actions, we're also responsible for our inactions. If you and you alone saw such an outcome coming, would it not be your moral duty to try and do what best you could to ensure at least some good? With that in mind there's room for an equal amount of guilt, if not more when you decide not to act. At least with losing one person, there's a marginal amount of comfort knowing that you did what you could.
Let's humour the idea of strictly policing alcohol consumption for a moment. Say we do require a license, what manner of scale or system is going to prove that some people are able to drink and some people (regardless of age) are not? At least with a license to operate a motorized vehicle there is a definitive competence required. A number of complex factors go into determining people who are at risk for consuming alcohol, and that's regardless of age too; just because teens will consume alcohol does not imply that they will become susceptible to the countless risk factors associated with drinking. So with all that in mind you're proposing that everyone who desires to consume alcohol endure some form of capability screening? That's like schools discriminating and denying students simply because of their IQ scores.
If pigs feet actually contains pig's feet, what does Chinese food contain? Chinese?
Emperors own all.
If you were a giraffe, what's the most gruesome way you would envision yourself dying?
Now this is a story all about-- THERE MUST'VE BEEN SOME MAGIC IN THAT OLD SILK HAT THEY FOUND!
You're not very good at this game. On another note, those new CDs, the radio, and iPod are up for sale. I only take cash.
I've merely played on implication. If they want to debate it then the ball's in their court.
How very astute of you to notice that this is in the SPAM ZONE. Seriously, you should be a detective.
Would this be a bad time to tell everyone about my new CDs, radio, and iPod? You can't smoke acid. Experiment some more you square.
Why doesn't my computer beep whenever it backs up? Is it too much to ask for a little safety during my hours of PC adventure? I don't know how many times I've come close to running down that punk-ass kid across the street while searching for free, high-quality pornogra- Jesus. Yep, searching for the good lord out in cyberspace. Nothing but me, my PC, some Jergens, and the search for the son of God.
YARRRRRRRrrrr I be that ****!
Forrest fires? That's quite an assumption. The polar ice caps have the chance of melting, but as to how much of them may melt is indeterminable at the moment. You make an even bigger assumption in thinking that the entire planet will be covered with water. It's more probable to assume that fair portions of the planet will remain relatively dry even if all the polar ice caps were to melt as opposed to some fantasy water world. Without any apparent evidence it's rather rash to assume such a worst-case scenario from Global warming. You're basing this on probable speculation. There's no proof on that matter. You can argue a natural climate shift, but you can't deny that we're effecting it in some way-- it's as much up in the air as the questions regarding the universe, albeit just a little closer to home and empirical study. But this is another debate. Back on to the topic.
