AI-powered
podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Exploring Moral Dilemmas: Empathy vs. Utilitarianism
The tension between empathy and utilitarianism emerges in moral dilemmas, illustrated through a provocative scenario involving the ethics of harming animals. Individuals often express a willingness to accept significantly higher compensation for causing harm to animals, like strangling a cat, compared to enduring personal pain, such as extracting a tooth. This indicates a complex moral landscape where visceral emotional responses challenge cold utilitarian calculations that aim to maximize overall well-being. While utilitarian reasoning would suggest prioritizing actions that save the most lives, most people's innate reactions lead them to hesitate against actions that feel morally repugnant, such as harming animals. The struggle between maintaining emotional ties—like prioritizing care for one's children—against the rational, utilitarian dictate of minimizing suffering invites introspection. Despite utilitarian criticisms labeling such emotional attachments as irrational, many prefer to cherish these preferences. The discourse suggests that while it may be beneficial to cultivate a more reasoned approach to ethical decisions regarding animals, innate feelings often steer moral choices, revealing the complexity of balancing subjective ethics against broader utilitarian goals.