Let's say that you can push one button and erase someone

>>2041556
You seem to be under the false assumption that utilitarians believe existence is good.

>>2041564

No. I'm saying that they don't believe existence is inherently good, and that's why I don't completely agree with them.

>>2041556
It isn't if those persons are Franz Josef or Wilhelm II. Or Gengis-khan. As for civilizations, erasing the Mongols would be an ethical act.

No & no.

It literally affects people as much as who they pass on the street.

Your intuitions are correct.

Being morally valuable =/= the possibility of being impactful.

>>2041556

That's an interesting and fun question but I'm not sure what it has to do with utilitarianism. The people who are currently in existence that you are planning to wipe out have preferences not to be wiped out of existence.

>>2041622
If you erase the Mongols or Hitler or whatever, equally bad stuff still happens without them. It's part of the thought experiment's rules.

>>2041556
A1:
>Morality
Shiggy.
A:2
See A1.

File: dark pill.png (115KB, 526x663px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 526x663px

It is the single most moral act that you can do. To not exist is to be in the most perfect state for any person. To grant someone a way out of the prison of existence is more than be moral. It is an act of the ultimate heroism.

>>2041730
Deep, but not necessarily. OP specifically tried to place this query in the Utilitarian sense.

>>2041556
>Q1: Is it immoral to push the button?

Yes, obviously. Killing someone is wrong even if you never get caught and even if no-one cares or notices.

>Q2: same as above, but an entire civilization is erased. Now is it immoral?

No, this would be a legitimate act of war.

>>2041831
Not OP but actually that is one of the very weakness of Utilitarianism. In its most basic form, Utilitarianism tends to disregard individuality and judges an action whether it is immoral or otherwise based on the net "utility" an action creates. If killing one person makes two people happy, it is justified (therefore moral) based on the criteria set by Utilitarianism.

>>2041870

You would need quite enormous (read impossible) amounts of happiness to be generated for those two people to get a net utility from a killing.

>>2041556
I would erase myself

>>2041556
I can only consider it immoral until I actually do it - then it becomes a non-issue.

>>2041730
>To not exist is to be in the most perfect state for any person.
Wrong. It's a non-state. It can't be qualified.

>>2041556
Unless nonexistence is somehow painful, no. Besides, how do you know if the erased person realizes they don't exist?