Necessary double standards?

[Ledan]

Mine is a situation a described as where positive discrimination would be valid. The fact that it rarely happens as it is supposed to happen (i.e that morons get promoted just because they are a different gender) doesn't invalidate the premise that when it happens correctly, it is a good thing.

Why? Why is discrimination a "good thing"?
God, big picture, people, BIG PICTURE. Sometimes, you have to do something bad in the short turn to have a great yield in the long run. If an more equal society is beneficial, then having to do some short-term discrimination to get long-term greater levels of equality is acceptable.
*snip*

That is utilitarianism and inevitably leads to an unjust society. Arguing that the ends justifies the means. By that philosophy torture is okay. Scapegoats are okay(blaming aliens for Chernobyl would be okay if it lead to a better society). Murder is okay.
Equal societies are better, but we can't get there by being discriminatory.

 

[Talvrae]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

I'm a femelle and i oppose positive discrimination, discrimination his discrimination and while it might be positive to someone it his negaative to someone else... A job should go to the person who his right for it, not to that girl because she is a girl... If she is the more competent for the job she should get it, if not... then too bad

 

[deadish]

You know, IMHO the problem is not whether we should have double standards. (Of course we do. We don't ask children to work do we?)

The problem is deciding WHAT those standards should be.

Eg. Minorities are having trouble become educated.

Do they need help? Yes.
Do we help them by giving them a "pass" even when they haven't learned the material well enough to warrant it? No.
If they are not getting educated because they can't afford the education. Do we cut them some slack when it comes to school fees? Yes.

 

[Realitycrash]

Mine is a situation a described as where positive discrimination would be valid. The fact that it rarely happens as it is supposed to happen (i.e that morons get promoted just because they are a different gender) doesn't invalidate the premise that when it happens correctly, it is a good thing.

Why? Why is discrimination a "good thing"?
God, big picture, people, BIG PICTURE. Sometimes, you have to do something bad in the short turn to have a great yield in the long run. If an more equal society is beneficial, then having to do some short-term discrimination to get long-term greater levels of equality is acceptable.
*snip*

That is utilitarianism and inevitably leads to an unjust society. Arguing that the ends justifies the means. By that philosophy torture is okay. Scapegoats are okay(blaming aliens for Chernobyl would be okay if it lead to a better society). Murder is okay.
Equal societies are better, but we can't get there by being discriminatory.

Yes it IS Utilitarianism. And the rest of your post is blatant lack of understanding concerning how Utilitarianism works.
The end justifies the mean, if the end justifies the mean. If murder would overall make a better society, I'd be all for it. Too bad it doesn't. Same goes for rape, or genocide, or anything else horrible you'd like to pull out.

It doesn't work, so I'm against it. I'm for it on principle, just as I am for Capital Punishment on principle.
Now, I'm fairly certain Positive Discrimination works, sacrificing small amounts of equality in the short term to gain a greater amount in the long term. So we should do it, if the math turns out right. And most government seems to agree with me, that indeed it WILL lead to a more diverse and equal society, which will be good for everyone in the long run.

 

[Something Amyss]

If men are a little stronger just because they have a Y chromosome

That statement just made a ton of scientists weep.

 

[Realitycrash]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

I'm a femelle and i oppose positive discrimination, discrimination his discrimination and while it might be positive to someone it his negaative to someone else... A job should go to the person who his right for it, not to that girl because she is a girl... If she is the more competent for the job she should get it, if not... then too bad

Cool. Which is exactly as I wrote? What is the misunderstanding here? I said "if both partners are equally good". So if all else equal, instead of a cointoss, we give it to the person in favor of said Positive Discrimination, for the greater good of society.

 

[Realitycrash]

If men are a little stronger just because they have a Y chromosome

That statement just made a ton of scientists weep.

His nick is "Twilight_guy". Maybe that is sort of a give-away?

Ah, but who am I to judge..

 

[SuperScrub]

I like girls with big boobs (not too big) but I don't think guys should have big boobs.
Actually it not really that big a double standard, as male boobs can't be used for breast feeding.

You clearly have not heard of futanari.

 

[Ledan]

Mine is a situation a described as where positive discrimination would be valid. The fact that it rarely happens as it is supposed to happen (i.e that morons get promoted just because they are a different gender) doesn't invalidate the premise that when it happens correctly, it is a good thing.

Why? Why is discrimination a "good thing"?
God, big picture, people, BIG PICTURE. Sometimes, you have to do something bad in the short turn to have a great yield in the long run. If an more equal society is beneficial, then having to do some short-term discrimination to get long-term greater levels of equality is acceptable.
*snip*

That is utilitarianism and inevitably leads to an unjust society. Arguing that the ends justifies the means. By that philosophy torture is okay. Scapegoats are okay(blaming aliens for Chernobyl would be okay if it lead to a better society). Murder is okay.
Equal societies are better, but we can't get there by being discriminatory.

Yes it IS Utilitarianism. And the rest of your post is blatant lack of understanding concerning how Utilitarianism works.
The end justifies the mean, if the end justifies the mean. If murder would overall make a better society, I'd be all for it. Too bad it doesn't. Same goes for rape, or genocide, or anything else horrible you'd like to pull out.

It doesn't work, so I'm against it. I'm for it on principle, just as I am for Capital Punishment on principle.
Now, I'm fairly certain Positive Discrimination works, sacrificing small amounts of equality in the short term to gain a greater amount in the long term. So we should do it, if the math turns out right. And most government seems to agree with me, that indeed it WILL lead to a more diverse and equal society, which will be good for everyone in the long run.

Utilitarianism doesn't work. The problem with the entire philosophy is that you can justify instances of unethical acts for the greater good. Such as discriminating to lead to an equal society.
By murder i meant you can justify killing someone if you can justify the ends. A more stable society could be achieved by killing dissenters. A biologically superior human can be achieved by sterilizing the retarded. And if you think that certain traits are better than others, you can justify genocide. You can justify framing someone fora crime they did not commit.
Unethical acts are still unethical, and should be avoided at all costs.

As for positive discrimination I will only say that the law needs to be neutral. You can have a law that says "If two applicants are regarded equal in their job capacities, the employer shall hire the applicant who represents a current minority in the company". That's fine, because it doesn't actually discriminate.

 

[Talvrae]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

I'm a femelle and i oppose positive discrimination, discrimination his discrimination and while it might be positive to someone it his negaative to someone else... A job should go to the person who his right for it, not to that girl because she is a girl... If she is the more competent for the job she should get it, if not... then too bad

Cool. Which is exactly as I wrote? What is the misunderstanding here? I said "if both partners are equally good". So if all else equal, instead of a cointoss, we give it to the person in favor of said Positive Discrimination, for the greater good of society.

It's not for greater good of society it,s degrading to woman. It basically say, hey if we don,t discriminate for you you wont get the job... I'm full equality of sex wich mean no discrimination one way or another

 

[Don Savik]

I wouldn't say its necessary, but I don't see anything wrong with being a bit chivalrous. Will I hold a door open for a pretty lady? Sure, but I don't expect anything out of it. Its just in my male heterosexual nature to want to be courteous around pretty ladies (IM FUCKING SORRY OK, I guess that means I've been brainwashed by THE PATRIARCHY) Most men don't give 2 shits if someone holds the door open for them, its just how we are. Now I'm not any less nice to guys, its just there are differences in how the genders behave.....generally. I know there are grey areas in genders but for the most part its harmless to be nice to people you find attractive. Its not malicious like feminists think it is.

More often than not I end up opening doors for families and old people though.....



awkward how most of this thread is about toilets though people.....are weird.

 

[Loonyyy]

I like girls with big boobs (not too big) but I don't think guys should have big boobs.
Actually it not really that big a double standard, as male boobs can't be used for breast feeding.

Guy boobs are great, especially when they're nice and firm and smooth.... wait what was I going to say?

Yea, I'm not sure I have any necessary double standards. I was the only female on an all male wrestling team in HS but they had to let me join the team and the other boys were too afraid to be too rough. I really wish they would of challenged me for real.

:/

Taekwondo. I had to spar some tiny Asian girl. Kicked her once during the sparring match. The girl's mom gave me hell. I didn't even kick hard...

I know that feel. I entered a mini-comp at my club once, got paired up with this girl, every kick apparently was too high. I mean, come on, above the belt, below the head, how is it too high? I ended up just not doing anything and getting the shit kicked out of my wrists for the rest of the match. You just can't win with some people...

 

[Realitycrash]

Mine is a situation a described as where positive discrimination would be valid. The fact that it rarely happens as it is supposed to happen (i.e that morons get promoted just because they are a different gender) doesn't invalidate the premise that when it happens correctly, it is a good thing.

Why? Why is discrimination a "good thing"?
God, big picture, people, BIG PICTURE. Sometimes, you have to do something bad in the short turn to have a great yield in the long run. If an more equal society is beneficial, then having to do some short-term discrimination to get long-term greater levels of equality is acceptable.
*snip*

That is utilitarianism and inevitably leads to an unjust society. Arguing that the ends justifies the means. By that philosophy torture is okay. Scapegoats are okay(blaming aliens for Chernobyl would be okay if it lead to a better society). Murder is okay.
Equal societies are better, but we can't get there by being discriminatory.

Yes it IS Utilitarianism. And the rest of your post is blatant lack of understanding concerning how Utilitarianism works.
The end justifies the mean, if the end justifies the mean. If murder would overall make a better society, I'd be all for it. Too bad it doesn't. Same goes for rape, or genocide, or anything else horrible you'd like to pull out.

It doesn't work, so I'm against it. I'm for it on principle, just as I am for Capital Punishment on principle.
Now, I'm fairly certain Positive Discrimination works, sacrificing small amounts of equality in the short term to gain a greater amount in the long term. So we should do it, if the math turns out right. And most government seems to agree with me, that indeed it WILL lead to a more diverse and equal society, which will be good for everyone in the long run.

Utilitarianism doesn't work. The problem with the entire philosophy is that you can justify instances of unethical acts for the greater good. Such as discriminating to lead to an equal society.
By murder i meant you can justify killing someone if you can justify the ends. A more stable society could be achieved by killing dissenters. A biologically superior human can be achieved by sterilizing the retarded. And if you think that certain traits are better than others, you can justify genocide. You can justify framing someone fora crime they did not commit.
Unethical acts are still unethical, and should be avoided at all costs.

You know, I think it is time we bring out Mr Skippy and Mr Utility. Maybe they can help explain things.

Mr Skippy: Hey, Mr Utility, can you explain Utilitarianism for me?

Mr Utility: Sure thing, Mr Skippy. Here comes a simplified description!

You see, Utilitarianism is the philosophy of greatest possible happiness for the masses (or the basic is, there are a myriad of specialized theories of Utilitarianism to solve the different problems that such a philosophy will encounter. Remember, kids, all philosophies encounter problems!).
First thing to know is that everything can be counted in Utility, the basic unit we use to determine what is the greatest possible happiness. There is no definite "good" or "bad" act, just acts that 1) overall tend to lead to Greatest Utility or 2) Does so in a certain context, even though it does not tend to overall do so.

Mr. Skippy: Gee, that sounds swell, Mr.Utility, but doesn't that mean that we can excuse any act whatsoever, if the end will net us Greater Utility, within a foreseeable time-period?

Mr. Utility: Yes it does, Mr. Skippy.. However, what we usually consider "bad acts" are "bad acts" for a reason, simply because they tend to generate an overall lack in Utility. Murder or rape might, in so convoluted situation, bring forth a situation in context that generates Greater Utility, but when applied to a society, it does not.

Mr.Skippy: So how does that answer the question?

Mr Utility: Well, Mr.Skippy, if you go ahead and murder someone, in the name of Greater Utility, then first off you must be reasonably sure that the murder will generate GU (sure enough that the GU is bigger, if you are correct, than the netloss of Utility, should you be wrong, by the fact that you have taken a life, broken the law, hurt peoples feelings, etc etc), and then you must be sure that people agree with you and understand your calculations. It doesn't matter if you can show that things will indeed turn out for the better if the murder was performed, if people disagree. In fact, this should be part of your calculations, for if people are this upset about murder, then clearly, then maybe it isn't generating GU?

Mr.Skippy: Gee, that sounds like a lot of math and unsure, speculative assumptions. How can people ever pull it off?

Mr. Utility: Most of the time, they can't. That's why we use Rules of Thumb. See, Rules of Thumb (or what is pretty much "every 'common sense' moral in the world") gives us a hint of what will not generate GU. Murder, rape, theft, tend to destabilize society, make people angry, and not generate GR on the grand scheme of things. That's why we don't murder people willy-nilly. That's why we don't have the courts frame someone for a crime, because it will destabilize society if word gets out that we can't trust our government to act fair and just.



Mr.Skippy: I see, but in case we CAN be reasonably sure, and have done enough research and fact to back this up, Murder is ethical?

Mr. Utility: You have to be veeeeery sure, Skippy. It is unlikely someone will ever be sure enough, but in some situations, YES. You have to explain this carefully, though, because people tend to use this an excuse to go slippery sloping, and use rhetorics to claim that an Utilitarian thinks any act can be done willy-nilly.

Mr. Skippy: But how does this relate to the problem Realitycrash is discussing, concerning Positive Discimination?

Mr Utility: Well, Mr. Skippy, Realitycrash thinks that in certain cases, discrimination can be used to fight a larger case of discrimination. And many people agree with him. While discrimination is "bad", it is "good" when it generates GR, which studies seem to indicate that it does.

Mr.Skippy: One last question..Doesn't this mean that there is nothing "sacred", just things that overall Greater Utility or not?

Mr. Utility: Indeed! What we normally consider "sacred" or "right" is just short for "something that overall tend to generate very much utility".

Edit: Mr. Utility mixed up Greatest Utility and Greatest Happiness. It's the same thing, but can get confusing. I've edited this away.

 

[Realitycrash]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

I'm a femelle and i oppose positive discrimination, discrimination his discrimination and while it might be positive to someone it his negaative to someone else... A job should go to the person who his right for it, not to that girl because she is a girl... If she is the more competent for the job she should get it, if not... then too bad

Cool. Which is exactly as I wrote? What is the misunderstanding here? I said "if both partners are equally good". So if all else equal, instead of a cointoss, we give it to the person in favor of said Positive Discrimination, for the greater good of society.

It's not for greater good of society it,s degrading to woman. It basically say, hey if we don,t discriminate for you you wont get the job... I'm full equality of sex wich mean no discrimination one way or another

I'm sorry, I don't follow...What? I already told you; It should be used when the situation is basically a coin toss. I.e when it can go either way for two applicants.

 

[Lopende Paddo]

Male and female sports teams. Men and women have biological differences that make inter-gender sports seem unfair. If men are a little stronger just because they have a Y chromosome, how is that fair to the female athletes? Male and female restrooms are another one too, although I'm not totally sold that its a necessity only that in my society its a necessity.

By that logic blacks arent aloud to compete against whites... since there is a difference in muscle structure giving one genetic advantage over the the other (depending on the activity)

and the restroom thing is a relic... cant wait untill gender equality is the same as in: STARSHIP TROOPERS!!!

 

[Ledan]

Mine is a situation a described as where positive discrimination would be valid. The fact that it rarely happens as it is supposed to happen (i.e that morons get promoted just because they are a different gender) doesn't invalidate the premise that when it happens correctly, it is a good thing.

Why? Why is discrimination a "good thing"?
God, big picture, people, BIG PICTURE. Sometimes, you have to do something bad in the short turn to have a great yield in the long run. If an more equal society is beneficial, then having to do some short-term discrimination to get long-term greater levels of equality is acceptable.
*snip*

That is utilitarianism and inevitably leads to an unjust society. Arguing that the ends justifies the means. By that philosophy torture is okay. Scapegoats are okay(blaming aliens for Chernobyl would be okay if it lead to a better society). Murder is okay.
Equal societies are better, but we can't get there by being discriminatory.

Yes it IS Utilitarianism. And the rest of your post is blatant lack of understanding concerning how Utilitarianism works.
The end justifies the mean, if the end justifies the mean. If murder would overall make a better society, I'd be all for it. Too bad it doesn't. Same goes for rape, or genocide, or anything else horrible you'd like to pull out.

It doesn't work, so I'm against it. I'm for it on principle, just as I am for Capital Punishment on principle.
Now, I'm fairly certain Positive Discrimination works, sacrificing small amounts of equality in the short term to gain a greater amount in the long term. So we should do it, if the math turns out right. And most government seems to agree with me, that indeed it WILL lead to a more diverse and equal society, which will be good for everyone in the long run.

Utilitarianism doesn't work. The problem with the entire philosophy is that you can justify instances of unethical acts for the greater good. Such as discriminating to lead to an equal society.
By murder i meant you can justify killing someone if you can justify the ends. A more stable society could be achieved by killing dissenters. A biologically superior human can be achieved by sterilizing the retarded. And if you think that certain traits are better than others, you can justify genocide. You can justify framing someone fora crime they did not commit.
Unethical acts are still unethical, and should be avoided at all costs.

You know, I think it is time we bring out Mr Skippy and Mr Utility. Maybe they can help explain things.

Mr Skippy: Hey, Mr Utility, can you explain Utilitarianism for me?

Mr Utility: Sure thing, Mr Skippy. Here comes a simplified description!

You see, Utilitarianism is the philosophy of greatest possible happiness for the masses (or the basic is, there are a myriad of specialized theories of Utilitarianism to solve the different problems that such a philosophy will encounter. Remember, kids, all philosophies encounter problems!).
First thing to know is that everything can be counted in Utility, the basic unit we use to determine what is the greatest possible happiness. There is no definite "good" or "bad" act, just acts that 1) overall tend to lead to Greatest Utility or 2) Does so in a certain context, even though it does not tend to overall do so.

Mr. Skippy: Gee, that sounds swell, Mr.Utility, but doesn't that mean that we can excuse any act whatsoever, if the end will net us Greater Utility, within a foreseeable time-period?

Mr. Utility: Yes it does, Mr. Skippy.. However, what we usually consider "bad acts" are "bad acts" for a reason, simply because they tend to generate an overall lack in Utility. Murder or rape might, in so convoluted situation, bring forth a situation in context that generates Greater Utility, but when applied to a society, it does not.

Mr.Skippy: So how does that answer the question?

Mr Utility: Well, Mr.Skippy, if you go ahead and murder someone, in the name of Greater Utility, then first off you must be reasonably sure that the murder will generate GU (sure enough that the GU is bigger, if you are correct, than the netloss of Utility, should you be wrong, by the fact that you have taken a life, broken the law, hurt peoples feelings, etc etc), and then you must be sure that people agree with you and understand your calculations. It doesn't matter if you can show that things will indeed turn out for the better if the murder was performed, if people disagree. In fact, this should be part of your calculations, for if people are this upset about murder, then clearly, then maybe it isn't generating GU?

Mr.Skippy: Gee, that sounds like a lot of math and unsure, speculative assumptions. How can people ever pull it off?

Mr. Utility: Most of the time, they can't. That's why we use Rules of Thumb. See, Rules of Thumb (or what is pretty much "every 'common sense' moral in the world") gives us a hint of what will not generate GU. Murder, rape, theft, tend to destabilize society, make people angry, and not generate GR on the grand scheme of things. That's why we don't murder people willy-nilly. That's why we don't have the courts frame someone for a crime, because it will destabilize society if word gets out that we can't trust our government to act fair and just.



Mr.Skippy: I see, but in case we CAN be reasonably sure, and have done enough research and fact to back this up, Murder is ethical?

Mr. Utility: You have to be veeeeery sure, Skippy. It is unlikely someone will ever be sure enough, but in some situations, YES. You have to explain this carefully, though, because people tend to use this an excuse to go slippery sloping, and use rhetorics to claim that an Utilitarian thinks any act can be done willy-nilly.

Mr. Skippy: But how does this relate to the problem Realitycrash is discussing, concerning Positive Discimination?

Mr Utility: Well, Mr. Skippy, Realitycrash thinks that in certain cases, discrimination can be used to fight a larger case of discrimination. And many people agree with him. While discrimination is "bad", it is "good" when it generates GR, which studies seem to indicate that it does.

Mr.Skippy: One last question..Doesn't this mean that there is nothing "sacred", just things that overall Greater Utility or not?

Mr. Utility: Indeed! What we normally consider "sacred" or "right" is just short for "something that overall tend to generate very much utility".

Edit: Mr. Utility mixed up Greatest Utility and Greatest Happiness. It's the same thing, but can get confusing. I've edited this away.

Mind bringing the fucking condescending tone down a bit?

I'm glad you brought up Greatest Happiness, it makes my arguments a lot easier. The end justifies the means if it brings a net total of greater happiness into society. Therefore a bad act is one that ends up with people being sadder and a good act is one that makes people happier. The most amount of people the most happy.
5 guys rape a girl. We could say that her unhappiness is greater than their happiness, but that depends then on how happy those guys became.
Now, what should that girl do? If she tells people then more people will be unhappy. If she doesn't tell anyone, then society will have a greater amount of happiness than if she doesn't tell them.
Roman style gladiator fights could be argued for, as long as the people we force to fight are either breed for the role and their population is always relativity small or we use prisoners. Why just throw someone in a chair when you could entertain people with them?

Ends justifying the means in the case of Greater Utility can also lead to rather morbid situations.

While discrimination is "bad", it is "good" when it generates GR, which studies seem to indicate that it does.

Slaves create greater utility. Without them we wouldn't have been able to support an upper class capable of generating new technologies.
Forcing people to marry according to a government breeding department creates greater utility. We could eradicate genetic diseases, and breed intelligent and athletic people. A Brave New World would await us if we did so or perhaps a Republic
Say the majority of the community wants to subjugate or exterminate a minority within the community, their happiness would become greater at the cost of the minorities. Would still create a net amount of more happiness if the minority was small enough.
And as long as people don't know that things are happening they won't get sad by them. So they can live in bliss. Just don't tell people when you torture innocents, freedom of speech should only be allowed when it causes greater happiness.
Anything that could cause instability in the system or generate a net amount of unhappiness should be censored.

That's why we don't have the courts frame someone for a crime, because it will destabilize society if word gets out that we can't trust our government to act fair and just

Anyone who tried to get the word out would be acting unethically then. Anything could be done to stop them.
Truly that would be an amazing world. Of course, you could also follow Kant and his Maxims but what the hell a totalitarian system of deceit seems to be the best after all.

 

[Twilight_guy]

If men are a little stronger just because they have a Y chromosome

That statement just made a ton of scientists weep.

Unless you can provide evidence of why, I'm going to go with what I've been taught for years and assume that men have in general more muscle mass and that men are men because of that Y chromosome. If you have some knowledge I don't know of, you should know its far better to share knowledge and educate then to make snarky comments and berate those who are ignorant.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Take the US Armies fitness test as a prime example. How is it that a 17-21 year old woman only needs to run as fast as a 42-46 year old man in a 2 mile run for admittance? Whereas a similar aged male needs to run roughly 3minutes quicker than she does? And when it comes to push ups, she need to do as many as a 57-61yr old male, whereas the same aged male must perform at a minimum her peak performance?

I have seen no justifiable double standard, but I do see justifiable standards.

Why is the 42-61 year old man allowed to do score less on the PT test than an 17-21 year old? Why are you focusing on only the minimum score differences between the males and females, and not soldiers of different age groups? Women aren't even allowed to do most of the jobs that require that level of PT scores (which are kind of retarded measurements to begin with). I see gender brought up a lot concerning PT scores, but the "unfairness" of minimum scores in different age categories always goes unquestioned by the same people. I wonder why that is.

 

[Realitycrash]

Snip

Mind bringing the fucking condescending tone down a bit?

I'm glad you brought up Greatest Happiness, it makes my arguments a lot easier. The end justifies the means if it brings a net total of greater happiness into society. Therefore a bad act is one that ends up with people being sadder and a good act is one that makes people happier. The most amount of people the most happy.
5 guys rape a girl. We could say that her unhappiness is greater than their happiness, but that depends then on how happy those guys became.
Now, what should that girl do? If she tells people then more people will be unhappy. If she doesn't tell anyone, then society will have a greater amount of happiness than if she doesn't tell them.
Roman style gladiator fights could be argued for, as long as the people we force to fight are either breed for the role and their population is always relativity small or we use prisoners. Why just throw someone in a chair when you could entertain people with them?

Ends justifying the means in the case of Greater Utility can also lead to rather morbid situations.

While discrimination is "bad", it is "good" when it generates GR, which studies seem to indicate that it does.

Slaves create greater utility. Without them we wouldn't have been able to support an upper class capable of generating new technologies.
Forcing people to marry according to a government breeding department creates greater utility. We could eradicate genetic diseases, and breed intelligent and athletic people. A Brave New World would await us if we did so or perhaps a Republic
Say the majority of the community wants to subjugate or exterminate a minority within the community, their happiness would become greater at the cost of the minorities. Would still create a net amount of more happiness if the minority was small enough.
And as long as people don't know that things are happening they won't get sad by them. So they can live in bliss. Just don't tell people when you torture innocents, freedom of speech should only be allowed when it causes greater happiness.
Anything that could cause instability in the system or generate a net amount of unhappiness should be censored.

That's why we don't have the courts frame someone for a crime, because it will destabilize society if word gets out that we can't trust our government to act fair and just

Anyone who tried to get the word out would be acting unethically then. Anything could be done to stop them.
Truly that would be an amazing world. Of course, you could also follow Kant and his Maxims but what the hell a totalitarian system of deceit seems to be the best after all.

I apologize, it was rather rude of me. Sorry.

"5 guys rape a girl. We could say that her unhappiness is greater than their happiness, but that depends then on how happy those guys became.
Now, what should that girl do? If she tells people then more people will be unhappy. If she doesn't tell anyone, then society will have a greater amount of happiness than if she doesn't tell them."

Well, if she doesn't tell them, said guys might rape again, generating even more unhappiness, or they might commit other crimes, or they might inadvertently teach their kids that women are worth less, etc.
And of course, not telling anyone will defeat the purpose of a working justice-system. If such a thought-system were to become dominant - I see you are aware of Kant, so I assume you are aware of the rationale of 'why to never tell a lie', and I will use the same premise here. It's a valid one - then it would undermine the entire justice-system. "I mustn't report my crime, because people will be more sad than if I do not". Thus, in the long run, GU is achieved by supporting the justice-system. HOWEVER, this problem is solved (but the previous ones is not) if she never comes clean with anyone that can spread the information of her rape onward. Then the system is not undermined, for no one will know. However, this is unlikely, and encouraging this kind of thinking is - surprise, surprise - also undermining the system.
If you are going to lie, you better be damn sure to never get caught, and oh, you can't encourage people to pull an Utilitarian lie (as per Kant's rationale), but you can still do it, provided you don't get caught.

"Roman style gladiator fights could be argued for, as long as the people we force to fight are either breed for the role and their population is always relativity small or we use prisoners. Why just throw someone in a chair when you could entertain people with them?"

Breading someone for a certain role is widely frowned upon in society, as it takes away something we value the most (very high GU), freedom and authenticity. So until this changes (and it won't), this is a no-go.
Slavery overall is a no-go, simply because it's so widely frowned upon. It can still technically be valid, if say we somehow manage to create a machine that make a huge population happy, but it runs on the souls of a few slaves. Also, better not tell anyone, and pray that no-one ever finds out (which is very unlikely, so the Risk/Reward situation will probably be on in the negative zone. I.e the risk is to great that someone finds out that we are violating Freedom and Authenticity, than the possible net-gain in GU).

"Forcing people to marry according to a government breeding department creates greater utility. We could eradicate genetic diseases, and breed intelligent and athletic people. A Brave New World would await us if we did so or perhaps a Republic
Say the majority of the community wants to subjugate or exterminate a minority within the community, their happiness would become greater at the cost of the minorities. Would still create a net amount of more happiness if the minority was small enough.
And as long as people don't know that things are happening they won't get sad by them. So they can live in bliss. Just don't tell people when you torture innocents, freedom of speech should only be allowed when it causes greater happiness."

Like I said before, the problem is Authenticity. The feeling that we are "our own" and "free in mind", that we are "authentic", is deeply ingrained in our minds. That's why we will never support such a breeding program. People would be far too upset to even hear about such a thing. I actually wrote a thesis-paper on this very issue, concerning Nozick's Experience-Machine. The same reason said program would never be accepted is the same reason very few would ever step into Nozick's machine and live a life of illusions; Our belief that we are authentic, and experience authentic things, generate more GU for us than the happiness such a machine would provide (or so we believe. It is possible that the machine can generate authenticity as well, then it would be a null-and-void problem if we could force people into the machine. At least for the people IN the machine, not for the rest of us).

All and all, I have no problems with lies and deceit, as long as no major lies will ever be discovered. Too bad we can pretty much never be sure of such either, and thus Risk/Reward is going to land in the Risk zone.

And Kant's "Never tell a lie" has some rather morbid problems of its own.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I like girls with big boobs (not too big) but I don't think guys should have big boobs.
Actually it not really that big a double standard, as male boobs can't be used for breast feeding.

You clearly have not heard of futanari.

Those aren't men; they're just girls with dicks.