How can utilitarians oppose gang rape?

Is there any way for a utilitarian ethicist to consistently oppose gang rape? After all, if the collective utility of the rapists is higher than that of the victim as a result of the rape, shouldn't the utilitarian support it?

I'd like to know how a utilitarian would wiggle their way out of this one.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Leon Trotsky

Maybe they'd make an exception.

Reply 2

thecityscape

It is very arguable that the collective utility of the rapists will not be higher than that of the victim due to after effects etc and depression

Reply 3

Shyness is nice, but

Probably because the trauma of being gang raped is likely to equate to much larger than the mass of the pleasure of the rapists.

Reply 4

Doublereedfreak

Using John Stuart Mills version.
It's not about thwat which will gain the greatest pleasure, but what can avoid the most pain.
I'm not articulating myself very clearly though. :/

Reply 5

Kreuzuerk

I would say the collective utility of the rapists is unlikely to be higher than that of the damage done to the victim, as others have said.

Reply 6

Connor132

I really hate people who think they're clever. The suffering of the rapee (pain/depression/humilliation ect.) would be more then the net pleasure of the rapists. There's also called this thing called a conscience so I doubt that there would be much pleasure for the rapist in the long term.

/end thread

Reply 7

HARRY PUTAH

I say this collective group of rapists will be sliced up if I came across it.

How much utility will they have then?

Reply 8

DontWantYourBloodMoney

Depends just how kinky the respective rapists are

Reply 9

cognito_08

Yeah, as someone said above, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism - distinguish between 'high' and 'lower' pleasures and sex is a lower pleasure so it is 'less valuable'.

Reply 10

Broderss

Utilitarians love it, apparently.

Reply 11

bacforever3

HappinessHappening

I presume you are arguing 'greatest good' utilitarianism as opposed to preference utilitarianism
long term consequenties = uneasy society, distrustful nation who are not happy as a result
If you are Mill then you recognise that the intellectually positive (ie. safe community) consequences are more heavily weighted than primitive happiness (ie rape)

Or, a utilitarianism might dip into neo-utilitarianism to weigh up the consequences, concluding less harm is done by no gang rape than by rape...

and didnt mill say your autonomy ends when your fist meets my face? might have been kant but if it was mill then the clause of happiness so long as no-one else is hurt over-rides the desire for rape?!

Reply 12

mf2004

happiness points for victim: -10-5n where n is the amount of rapists
happiness points for rapists: +4 (each)

Change in happiness points overall: -10-n => overall effect of rape is bad in any situation. (numbers are just random)

I might be talking complete ******** though

Reply 13

Diogeues

The suffering would far outweigh the collective pleasure. Besides, everyone has a conscience to some extent!

Reply 14

Kater Murr

Either, as people have said, that the drop in utility of the victim is greater than the aggregative rise in utility of the rapists, or... the notion of 'diminishing marginal utility', which gives extra priority to the worst-off, usually so that people don't drop below a certain utility level for the sake of other people's happiness. Or Nozick would suggest side-constraints so that human rights are still respected - the problem with these is that they fail to be utilitarian, ultimately, but there will be plenty of utilitarians who hold one or both points of view.