“There may only be a small number of laws, which are self-consistent and which lead to complicated beings like ourselves. … And even if there is only one unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern? Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence?”
— Stephen Hawking
There are many allegedly unsolved problems in ethics—one’s which the correct theory ought to be able to solve, much the way that a unified theory of the economy ought to be able to predict recessions, and a unified theory of physics able to predict quantum mechanical oddities. Easily solving all of them would be a nice benefit to a theory, for the correct one should be able to solve them all.
It is said that rationality consists of telling you how, rather than what, to think. Well screw that. This post is telling you what to think on lots of ethical problems. It also tells you how to think a little bit, by serving as more support for utilitarianism.
Ethical questions have the lovely property of being solvable a priori, for those who invent the thought experiments do us all the courtesy of specifying the utility of each action. So here goes. Let’s solve all of ethics.
1 What should you do in the trolley problem? The answer is obvious, you should flip the switch. I’ve already argued that doctor’s should kill people and harvest their organs in hypothetical cases in which they have metaphysical certainty that doing so would save five lives and have no other negative effects. The problem is no different. In the future, I might write more defending this pro flip switching view. But for now, I merely intend to show that utilitarianism easily solves all ethical questions, as long as there’s adequate information given.
2 Should you eat meat? No, animals probably can suffer and eating meat inflicts vast amounts of suffering on them.
3 Is it morally good to bring people with good lives into existence? Yes, they experience lots of happiness.
4 Is taxation bad because it’s theft? No, taxation may technically be theft in a semantic sense, but theft tends to have bad consequences. If taxation has good consequences, then the bad things about theft don’t apply to it. Incidentally, many years ago, it was thinking about the argument that taxation is theft that caused me to invent utilitarianism—which had been very rudely preemptively plagiarized by philosophers dating back thousands of years.
5 What determines if something is a right? Well, things should be conceived of as rights if doing so increases happiness. This seems to match all of the rights that we care about. The right to life makes things go best.
6 If we expect the future to be good, should reducing risks of extinction be our top priority? Yes, extinction prevents lots of good experience.
7 Should you donate lots to charity? Yes—you can save a life for only a few thousand dollars if you give to the malaria consortium or reduce existential threats.
8 What should you do in footbridge? Push the guy off—it saves the most people. Duh.
9 Is genetic engineering permissible? Yes, it makes people’s lives better.
10 Is abortion fine? Depends on difficult empirical questions.
11 Are human challenge trials fine? Yes, they make people’s lives better.
Unfortunately my special brand of Deontology ALSO solves these issues.
1) Don't harvest organs, it violates human rights
2) Yes, eat meat. Animals don't have souls
3) No, it's not. People who don't exist yet have no moral value nr expected value, except insofar as we feel happy bringing them into being.
4) Taxation is theft unless I am the one doing the taxing
5) What determines if something is a right? Me!
6) Ok.
7) Makes sense
8) No, it violates human rights
9) Ok
10) Yes, abortion is fine because you can yeet anything you want out of your body
#UtilisFake