You're right, I should have mentioned consequentialism, which is what utilitarianism falls under - the idea that "the end justifies the means", which is what I'm really focused on. Utilitarianism goes further and suggests that the consequence defines the morality of the action. For the sake of discussion, I'll just say that I'm really drawn to deontological ethics and moral absolutism.


Yes, that's textbook utilitarianism and what I was looking for. You believe that the maximisation of utility justifies pointing a gun at someone and demanding their help - "or else". What I'm interested in is the idea that if there were no alternatives to taxation, then would taxation be moral? But first, we need to make it clear whether or not you believe that taking someone's money (without their consent) is a moral thing to do, then we can carry on with this conversation. I'm expecting you to say that it isn't, but it's justified by the maximisation of utility, making it, overall, a moral thing. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.


That's the thing, one has to assert that we all value rabbits at around the same level. In order to do that, we would have to take Schopenhauer's belief that compassion is the basis of morality and apply it to the hypothesis. When we do that, we end up with a creature we value, higher than plant life, bugs and insects, but lower than humans. Therefore, does the intent (survival) justify the killing of the rabbit. It's an immoral thing to do, but if we take your point of our friends and family being affected by our death, then we're maximising utility by eating the rabbit.


I would say it's unethical on the basis of the action.