I’m not at all sure that the question of “real utility” is so vastly different from his perception of “status”, as you call it.
In the one scenario, he pursues “real utility” for at least two people—but he also helps promote the idea that intruding on someone’s most intense moments of grief in such a way is an acceptable practice. And though he may use such intrusion for the greater good, others will be less benevolent in their intentions.
So how does the world look like if everyone followed the example of the “meat-fucker”, the emotional-manipulator? Every similar cause will have people looking at the newspapers for obituaries, so that they can specifically target people at their most emotionally vulnerable moments. At their most emotionally vulnerable moments, people won’t be thinking clearly. And therefore a majority of less than ideal choices get encouraged. Plus, you know, the extra burden of grief-stricken people having to deal with manipulators.
Does this bigger scenario have positive or negative utility for you? Aurini clearly wants a world with fewer “meat-fuckers”. So would I. That’s utility too.
As far as I can tell, your entire argument consists of playing reference-class tennis with the categorical imperative. I’m not inclined to join you.
[To be less obscure: you have made arbitrary (and unnecessarily broad) choices of what constitutes the “idea” or “example” being “promoted” or “encouraged”, without providing any supporting reasons for your choice, vs. other possible choices of what to abstract from the specific example. That’s reference-class tennis. You’re also assuming that the categorical imperative is the reference standard for ethics, vs. say, strict consequentialism or some sort of deontic ethics.]
I’m not at all sure that the question of “real utility” is so vastly different from his perception of “status”, as you call it.
In the one scenario, he pursues “real utility” for at least two people—but he also helps promote the idea that intruding on someone’s most intense moments of grief in such a way is an acceptable practice. And though he may use such intrusion for the greater good, others will be less benevolent in their intentions.
So how does the world look like if everyone followed the example of the “meat-fucker”, the emotional-manipulator? Every similar cause will have people looking at the newspapers for obituaries, so that they can specifically target people at their most emotionally vulnerable moments. At their most emotionally vulnerable moments, people won’t be thinking clearly. And therefore a majority of less than ideal choices get encouraged. Plus, you know, the extra burden of grief-stricken people having to deal with manipulators.
Does this bigger scenario have positive or negative utility for you? Aurini clearly wants a world with fewer “meat-fuckers”. So would I. That’s utility too.
As far as I can tell, your entire argument consists of playing reference-class tennis with the categorical imperative. I’m not inclined to join you.
[To be less obscure: you have made arbitrary (and unnecessarily broad) choices of what constitutes the “idea” or “example” being “promoted” or “encouraged”, without providing any supporting reasons for your choice, vs. other possible choices of what to abstract from the specific example. That’s reference-class tennis. You’re also assuming that the categorical imperative is the reference standard for ethics, vs. say, strict consequentialism or some sort of deontic ethics.]