The Weighted Lottery - A Fair Solution to Utilitarianism

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into the weighted lottery and whether this could be a solution to the problems of Utilitarianism.

In moral situations Utilitarianism is seen as always benefiting the majority party and never considering the minority. The weighted lottery can be used by Utilitarians to give moral consideration to the minority within ethical dilemmas. Watch as the weighted lottery is explained and shown to be a possible solution to the moral shortcomings of the Utilitarian approach to ethics.

Get the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on Amazon:

[PhilosophyVibe]

Get the Philosophy Vibe “Ethics” eBook, available on Amazon:

[trevorbeingtrevor]

Definitely using the weighted lottery for deciding where to eat in the future haha. It seems like every ethical framework breaks down at the extremes or in particular situations 😕

[ras]

The weighted lottery solution is another approach to utilitarianism from the perspective of equal opportunity. It doesn't solve the problem of utilitarianism. Rather, it redefines utilitarianism in a friendly tone.

[hofserra]

Would be cool to use in elections and decide the government in one lottery draw!

[trextraining]

Just Re-watched this, Because you guys and Awesome!

[freedomdividendnews]

they pretty much summed it as we have certain rights that should be more important than any utilitarian action

[dorcas]

I think the status of the only person on the island in this matter alone is a consideration I believe that putting the only person on the island on this issue and considering the option alone is a consideration of the right of the minority.

[perryjphilip]

Utilitarianism isn't about fair representation though. It's fundamentally about pleasure and pain. If you draw the blue ball and rescue 1 person your still not maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

[jackmahoney]

Great conversation as always! But I wonder what happens if the one person is a wonderful humanitarian, someone who has dedicated his life to science and solving complex issues facing the world, inventing numerous vaccines and other public health cures, while the five people are all evil people, such as Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, Somoza, and Putin. Okay, so it’s an extreme example. But the point is, does utilitarianism allow us to consider the “value” of the lives being considered? Perhaps the weights in the lottery could be adjusted numerically to compensate for quality of the lives.

[russelltulp]

No! This is absolutely from the perspective of the rescuers and not the victims. If I had the abilility to save five people at the cost of my own life, I would absolutely do it. Give human beings some credit for altruism. If five people were sacrificed for me, even though I had no say in it, I would hate the idea even if such an idea was acted on and accepted without my consent. To die to save others is right and a crowning achievement on a life well spent or otherwise. To be saved at the expense of other lives is unthinkable endless guilt and blame. Please, please never save me if others can be saved.

[balls]

Everyone’s idea of utilitarianism is different. Certain benefits or outcomes will seem like the greatest good depending on the person, even though it may not be “correct” in being the greatest good outcome. Even though to me, the “greatest good ” part of greatest number seems more like an opinion. Unfortunately it seems alot of things are subjective when you break them down far enough. I like the idea of utilitarianism, but oh boy it can lead to some crazy rationalizations lmao

[gerharddamm]

Could a utilitarian philosophy with individual/minority rights be less morally dissonant? In the example of the organ harvest, you would be breaking the human rights of the individual and so it would not be permissible.

[Velvet_Torpedo]

Hope they didn't have to fly to the store and find some red and blue balls, they're all gonna be dead by the time they figire out what they're doing! 😄 The Weighted Lottery actually seems like a fair solution at first but allowing 5 to die for 1 just seems wrong to me when you think about it. To turn the tables once again though; what if that 1 person had the cure for cancer and would in fact save millions? Guess then you save the 1.