Summary:

Through a self-dialogue format, this essay conducts stress tests on utilitarianism under extreme moral scenarios, exposing its structural contradictions and value conflicts. The author proposes that by placing justice above utility in moral reasoning, we can avoid ethical distortions, reduce computational burdens, and preserve utilitarianism’s strength in optimizing outcomes—within a morally sound framework. This results in a more robust and principled value system.

A Dialogue with a Utilitarian
— A Stress Test of Utilitarianism and a Proposal for a Justice-Based Framework

This is a thought experiment. Both A and B are myself — it is a principled dialogue I conducted in an attempt to engage with utilitarianism, not a debate aimed at any specific person.

A wants to program values into AI, which requires a structure that is codable, comparable, and summable. Utilitarianism meets all three conditions, whereas deontology, virtue ethics, and tragic ethics cannot be effectively modeled.
B The current existence of AI serves as a counterexample. AI maintains logical consistency without being utilitarian, and it can rigorously express non-quantifiable values. This proves that rationality ≠ utilitarianism. AI reasoning isn’t about maximizing a number — it’s about maintaining semantic coherence, validity of premises, and closure of reasoning. In short, it's a structure-oriented logic equilibrium. As long as AI can express and understand structural logic, it doesn’t need a utility function.

B: First Extreme Scenario Test

If you insist on utilitarianism, do you support individual privacy being overridden by national security?
A The core principle of utilitarianism is that whether an action is right depends solely on whether it yields the greatest total utility. If it can be reasonably predicted to maximize utility, then it’s acceptable.
B What about the extremes? What’s the limit? Can the state arrest you just on suspicion? If suspicion remains, can they torture you?
A If preventive detention significantly reduces crime and improves public safety, and the side effects are within an acceptable range, then it’s justifiable. In extreme cases, torture could be a reasonable method — but with added conditions: only with high certainty and in cases of urgent time constraints.
B Why not torture in cases of medium certainty or no urgency if the utility is still positive?
A Because it...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments