The Deity does not regard the human race collectively. He surveys at one glance and severally all the beings of whom mankind is composed, and he discerns in each man the resemblances which assimilate him to all his fellows, and the differences which distinguish him from them. God, therefore, stands in no need of general ideas; that is to say, he is never sensible of the necessity of collecting a considerable number of analogous objects under the same form for greater convenience in thinking. Such is, however, not the case with man. If the human mind were to attempt to examine and pass a judgment on all the individual cases before it, the immensity of detail would soon lead it astray and bewilder its discernment: in this strait, man has recourse to an imperfect but necessary expedient, which at once assists and demonstrates his weakness. Having superficially considered a certain number of objects, and remarked their resemblance, he assigns to them a common name, sets them apart, and proceeds onwards.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2 Chapter III
General ideas are no proof of the strength, but rather of the insufficiency of the human intellect; for there are in nature no beings exactly alike, no things precisely identical, nor any rules indiscriminately and alike applicable to several objects at once. The chief merit of general ideas is, that they enable the human mind to pass a rapid judgment on a great many objects at once[.]
Theoretically the ideal decision-making system, Utilitarianism judges actions by ultimate results. However, as the time horizon of judgement approaches infinity, our knowledge of final consequences rapidly approaches zero, rendering Utilitarianism unworkable.
For the Mind of God, as Alexis de Tocqueville describes it above, incomplete applications of justice are impossible. He would know in each moment the position and tendency of all things, then iterate forth all possible endings of a possible action, consider them accordingly, and judge easily which action produced the greater overall utility. For such a mind, Utilitarianism is clearly the optimal moral framework, as a trivial case.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we must consider situations where we have little knowledge and low processing time — life as we know it as beings in a material world.
In such cases where futures cannot be iterated, we must rely on moral codes. Even if they are not always right, they are “less wrong” in that they absolve some guilt in one who acts incorrectly, and permit less from an active agent who seeks to justify himself or herself.
In the former case, we would forgive someone who saved the life of a child (who would be a brutal dictator in the future) because they believed that saving an innocent life is good. When that child grows up, takes over a democratic government and does awful things out of a conviction that it will improve humanity overall, we would still hold that as wrong even if he was technically correct because he serves as such a strong negative example that dozens of future generations better humanity more than they would otherwise just to spite him.
So the examples are pretty clear on when we have no knowledge and all knowledge, but we’re always stuck in the middle. What’s the trade-off point between the two?
I posit that the trade-off comes when you estimate how long the effects will linger before it becomes indistinguishable in the long run. How quickly will the effects of your decision fade away? For this, we could rely on integral calculus. The impact always approaches an asymptote of zero effect, but the sum may or may not be infinite. If it is infinite, go Utilitarian. If not, be Virtuous. You will find that both options agree the vast majority of the time.
However, even this pretense of knowledge of possible outcomes is a position I cannot reasonably stake. I am a being that can only see life backwards and must live it forwards.
John