Utilitarianism doesn't justify Kyubey's actions. When you're trying to do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, you need to definine what you mean by good. Historically, people who invoke utilitarianism have used happiness as the foundation for this.
Quote:
|
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its usefulness in maximizing utility and minimizing negative utility (utility can be defined as pleasure minus pain, preference satisfaction, knowledge or other things) as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. The most influential contributors to this theory are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
|
Even when only considering problems involving humans, deciding how to add together and value different peoples' preferences and emotions is a fundamental weakness of utilitarianism. Evaluating the emotional effect of an action on someone with a different personality or different values is really difficult. This is even more ridiculous when when we're trying to somehow figure out the net happiness, will, preference, (or whatever metric we decide on) of all of the individuals in all the species of the universe, many of which have completely incompatible value systems, types of emotion, and ways in which they experience life. Since Kyubey's race is incapable of emotion, the argument could be made that they should not be included in the happiness calculus of utilitarianism at all. Utilitarianism might work when you're considering a handful of similar people, but not on a universal, multispecies scale like this.
Furthermore, trying to apply utilitarianism on a cosmic timescale is even more ridiculous. Utilitarianism depends completely on the outcome of the actions in question (the end justifies the means). There's absolutely no way to predict what that might be in this case. On any reasonable scale, this might be a nitpicky complaint, but I think this "butterfly effect" argument holds water in this case.
We can't rely strongly on gut instinct or assumptions based on common sense to resolve the two issues above either, since then we're really just using utilitarianism as a fancy, rational-sounding, but ultimately hollow argument to wrap around our gut instincts and commonsense assumptions and make it sound like we actually made a considered decision about the morality of something. (Which is sadly how utilitarianism is used far too often.)
My argument here is to preempt people who try to justify Kyubey's actions with utilitarianism here, since that theory is waaay out of its depth in this situation. (Not that Kyubey himself cares what humans think about the morality of his actions.)
Scanlator
