<story><title>Bentham&apos;s Mugging (2022)</title><url>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/utilitas/article/benthams-mugging/9C67002F344B20661A6C35C960F25A86</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>ertgbnm</author><text>The underlying assumption is that Bentham is a true act utilitarian yet simultaneously has 10 pounds in his pocket that he can stand to lose without much harm. If he truly were an act utilitarian, the utility of the 10 pounds remaining in Bentham&amp;#x27;s possession must be so high that it outweighs the mugger losing their finger, otherwise Bentham would have already spent it on something similarly utility maximizing. Clearly that 10 pounds was already destined to maximize utility such as staving off Bentham&amp;#x27;s hunger and avoiding his own death or the death of others.&lt;p&gt;Meanwhile the utility of the mugger&amp;#x27;s finger is questionable. The pain of losing the finger is the only real cost. If they are just a petty criminal, the loss of their finger will probably reduce their ability to commit crimes and prevent him from inflicting as much suffering on others as he otherwise would have. Maybe losing his finger actually increases utility.&lt;p&gt;Bentham: &amp;quot;I&amp;#x27;m sorry Mr. Mugger but I am on my way to spend this 10 pounds on a supply of fever medication for the orphanage and I am afraid that if I don&amp;#x27;t procure the medicine, several children will die or suffer fever madness. So when faced with calculating the utility of this situation I must weigh your finger against the lives of these children. Good day. And if the experience of cutting your finger off makes you question your own deontological beliefs, feel free to call upon me for some tutoring on the philosophy of Act Utilitarianism.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Any other scenario and Bentham clearly isn&amp;#x27;t a true Act Utilitarian and would just tell the Mugger to shove his finger up his ass for all Bentham cares. Either strictly apply the rules or don&amp;#x27;t apply them at all.</text></comment>
<story><title>Bentham&apos;s Mugging (2022)</title><url>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/utilitas/article/benthams-mugging/9C67002F344B20661A6C35C960F25A86</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>lcnPylGDnU4H9OF</author><text>Bentham brought up a good point:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Fair enough. But, even so, I worry that giving you the money would set a bad precedent, encouraging copycats to run similar schemes.&lt;p&gt;I don’t understand how it was logically defeated with escalation as in the story. Would it be wrong for a Utilitarian to continue arguing against this precedent, saying that the decision to be mugged removes overall Utility because now anyone who can be sufficiently convincing can also effectively steal money from Utilitarians. (I guess money changing hands is presumed net neutral in the story?)</text></comment>