To see what utilitarians would actually do, observe what happens when a group with a utilitarian ideology gets unchecked political power.
I pretty regularly hear that Stalin or Ho or Tito’s “authoritarianism”, was regrettably necessary in order to achieve economic development, which is just the same argument that “socialism needs killing fields”, only made by a socialist instead of a supporter of capitalism
Have you ever seen a typical chair? I haven’t, so if you have, tell me its measurements.
Likewise, there is no typical deontology or utilitarianism. Comparison across societies—none of which were purely either—in which no variable is controlled for, to see which of the two generally does better or worse, is not how to evaluate morality.
To calculate the cost of a purchase, one multiplies by a fraction to figure out the tax to pay. If doing it with decimal points and standard notation, there is a chance for a huge mistake if one forgets to carry a one, move a decimal point, or add the tax to the subtotal. The hand waving “add a bit to the subtotal” may have less error, on average, as a way to determine how much one will spend on a purchase plus tax. It will also never have a major error. Nonetheless, anything other than computation is an approximation of the real process, some situations are so simple most everyone should calculate, some people are so good at math they should calculate when others shouldn’t try, etc.
I pretty regularly hear that Stalin or Ho or Tito’s “authoritarianism”, was regrettably necessary in order to achieve economic development, which is just the same argument that “socialism needs killing fields”
That’s not how I’d interpret it (at least not when put like that). To me that argument reads more like “economic development in the USSR/Vietnam/Yugoslavia required killing fields”, which is very different to “socialism needs killing fields”.
To see what utilitarians would actually do, observe what happens when a group with a utilitarian ideology gets unchecked political power.
I pretty regularly hear that Stalin or Ho or Tito’s “authoritarianism”, was regrettably necessary in order to achieve economic development, which is just the same argument that “socialism needs killing fields”, only made by a socialist instead of a supporter of capitalism
To see what deontologists would actually do, observe what happens when a group with a deontological ideology gets unchecked political power.
Actually, that’s probably not an informative question.
So what have these wicked deontologists been up to?
It looks to me that deontological ideologies have a markedly better record than utilitarian ideologies.
Have you ever seen a typical chair? I haven’t, so if you have, tell me its measurements.
Likewise, there is no typical deontology or utilitarianism. Comparison across societies—none of which were purely either—in which no variable is controlled for, to see which of the two generally does better or worse, is not how to evaluate morality.
To calculate the cost of a purchase, one multiplies by a fraction to figure out the tax to pay. If doing it with decimal points and standard notation, there is a chance for a huge mistake if one forgets to carry a one, move a decimal point, or add the tax to the subtotal. The hand waving “add a bit to the subtotal” may have less error, on average, as a way to determine how much one will spend on a purchase plus tax. It will also never have a major error. Nonetheless, anything other than computation is an approximation of the real process, some situations are so simple most everyone should calculate, some people are so good at math they should calculate when others shouldn’t try, etc.
That’s not how I’d interpret it (at least not when put like that). To me that argument reads more like “economic development in the USSR/Vietnam/Yugoslavia required killing fields”, which is very different to “socialism needs killing fields”.