No one can define what a “unit” “of” “pain” is with any specificity.
Maybe (maybe) we can imagine that “1000 units of pain” is the average “pain” of a torture. Though again no one can actually define pain without appealing to assertive logic.
But I cannot actually comprehend how one can turn that into “999 units of pain”. It is gibberish to me.
Second
The “pain” caused by torture and the “pain” caused by dust specks are simply incommensurable. Perhaps there’s a fuzzy diving zone where the ratio between the two grows hyperbolically, but ultimately they cannot be compared.
Third,
Death is often preferable to torture. It is easy to find historical examples of such torture.
Fourth,
There is an a priori deontological duty to not commit certain acts of torture.
This is at least as clear to me as the raw assertion that pleasure is good at the heart of your utilitarian calculus.
Torture for whom, dust specks for whom? Tiny micro aggravations experienced by huge numbers of people aren't experientially equivalent to agonising pain experienced by one subject.. utilitarianism says that the are morally equivalent, because you just multiply number of people by amount of pain....but you don't have to believe that. Since the two situations actually are different, why should they be weighted the same?
First
No one can define what a “unit” “of” “pain” is with any specificity.
Maybe (maybe) we can imagine that “1000 units of pain” is the average “pain” of a torture. Though again no one can actually define pain without appealing to assertive logic.
But I cannot actually comprehend how one can turn that into “999 units of pain”. It is gibberish to me.
Second
The “pain” caused by torture and the “pain” caused by dust specks are simply incommensurable. Perhaps there’s a fuzzy diving zone where the ratio between the two grows hyperbolically, but ultimately they cannot be compared.
Third,
Death is often preferable to torture. It is easy to find historical examples of such torture.
Fourth,
There is an a priori deontological duty to not commit certain acts of torture.
This is at least as clear to me as the raw assertion that pleasure is good at the heart of your utilitarian calculus.
Torture for whom, dust specks for whom? Tiny micro aggravations experienced by huge numbers of people aren't experientially equivalent to agonising pain experienced by one subject.. utilitarianism says that the are morally equivalent, because you just multiply number of people by amount of pain....but you don't have to believe that. Since the two situations actually are different, why should they be weighted the same?
I used to think that (for decades), but no longer, as I discuss in the philosophy chapters
https://www.losingmyreligions.net/