Praise and congratulate a murderer and human trafficker, treat this person like a saint and promote them as a great person, knowing fully well that they are capable of horrible and atrocious crimes, and that you are helping them to find more victims by giving them good public relations. This is a person who has done no harm to you, but has harmed many people, none who you know personally (for now, at least). You may never show any signs of mistrust in this person, you must show loyalty and support for this person even if there is doubt about the credibility of the reputation you give.
Condemn and ruin the life of a completely innocent person, a charitable person who works an ordinary job. If you choose the second option, you must treat this person like a horrible excuse of a human being and slander them into being thought of as undeserving of happiness, knowing fully well that they are completely incapable of being horrible, and that you are tormenting them into a life of irreversible hell, and that this person will never be able to clear their name or have any meaningful relationships. This is a person who has done no harm to you, and has helped many people, but by chance hasn’t crossed paths with you or anyone close to you (for now, at least). This person just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You may never show any signs of trust in this person, you must show disregard and hatred for this person even if there is doubt about the credibility of the reputation you give.
The sex, gender, nationality, ethnicity, presence of disabilities if any, and sexual orientation of each hypothetical person is unknown, but it is known that they are both articulate people who are capable of reason.
The precise age is also unknown, but they are both adults.
It is not known if they have families of their own, or if they are orphans or not.
Nothing about their living situations or backstories beyond the given information is known.
This is just a thought experiment and I’m interested in which one you find least evil and why
Bernard Williams on Utilitarianism — An online group viewing and discussion on Saturday September 24, free and open to everyone to join
Bernard Williams was one of the most significant moral philosophers of the 20th century.
We will watch together this video: https://youtu.be/V5nW7ZG-vNY
Please note that we will put emphasis in keeping the conversation civil and focused on the text: no politics or religion in the discussion.
This discussion is not meant for specialists.
So, lying is often judged as bad deed (and it's justified, because in most cases it is to harm someone like ,,stealing" money by lying)
But life isn't 0-1, and sometimes situations are not so clear. Almost everyone say that it is ok to lie to protect life (like ,,Do you know where that #### is? I wanna beat him to death" ,,No") but sometimes lying(or just not telling the truth) seems to be possibly good idea
EXAMPLE1: You know that your friend's bf cheated on her many years ago, it was 1 night stand. Now he is totally different person and he ,,repented"(not necesary religious sense). If you tell you'll cause suffering, if you wont tell she will still not be aware. Dillema seems to be hard to solve
(you can also make example that for example years ago it was you who cheated and question about confessing to partner)
EXAMPLE2: You used to be a jerk, and did something bad to your friends, like talking behind their back.
It didn't affected them directly, only that some mean words were said but they didn't for exapmle loose job. In practice ,,nothing happened". Now you realise it was wrong to say it, so you have a choice
confess (almost 100% sure friendship will end), or stay silent (and never say anything about them like that again)