And the problem with this is that if all morality is is the “experience of conscious minds” then why should I care about it. A “morality” that doesn’t create an obligation to adhere to its precepts isn’t morality. It’s simply some natural hard wiring of our brains that has no authority over me or anyone else. The idea that experiance or evolution or any natural process can explain morality is very mistaken. It doesn’t explain morality, it explains it away. Natural processes create instincts not obligations. I’m as free to ignore this kind of “morality” as I am to ignore any other instinct I choose. That certainly isn’t morality.

My point is that outrageous hypotheticals don’t happen in the real world. I’m not against using examples to try to outline a philosophical problem, but if the hypothetical is absurd then it fails to give real life ground (the whole point of an example) to the issue being addressed.

“If this event were to happen, which is could, it would mean that utilitarianism is false.”

Even though I think utilitarianism is utterly false, I don’t think I can logically accept that proposition. One example does not prove an entire philosophy wrong. One example is usually indicative of a larger series of problems; the example itself does not condemn the entire philosophy.

If this event were to happen, which is could, it would mean that utilitarianism is false. Therefore, in actual events in real life, utilitarianism is a false and flawed worldview because it cannot address problems that could occur.

I understand that it is less compelling to the average Joe the plumber, but I think that in an intellectual sense, the Room 306 scenario disproves Utilitarianism regardless of the likelihood of the event.

Truth is truth, regardless of it’s “force”. Truth remains to be true regardless of how compelling it is.

In effect, the person advancing the hypothetical is saying, “This is why utilitarianism is bad! If this happened, then the loss of life and the degredation of life would be catastrophic!” But, if such a situation doesn’t happen, then the argument loses its force. The point of a situational analysis such as the Room 306 scenario is to show what how principles play out in the real world, not abstractly.

First, even if the likelihood of the “Room 306″ scenario is small, it is still theoretically possible. A lot of moral and philosophical reasoning deals in theoreticals. IT IS POSSIBLE for this scenario to present itself, therefore it is a valid argument.

It would be a different story if the theoretical presented some kind of element that invalidated the principles at stake, but this scenario is possible. Even with low odds, if this scenario presented itself (which it could) then the likelihood of the scenario wouldn’t really matter would it? Although these hypothetical scenarios don’t serve well as day-to-day guides, they do serve as a good way to access moral analysis and isolate the moral principles at work, which is the purpose of the “Room 306″ scenario.

I would argue that likelihoods would not prove this argument wrong especially since IT IS possible. Low odds or not, it can become a reality and is therefore a moral dilemma that is valid.

The odds of three transplant patients having the exact blood comparability, especially since all of the transplant patients are getting different transplants, is astronomical. The odds of there being one patient with perfect compatability for all three patients is even more infinitessimal.

What don’t you like about the scenario?