Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/16/02 11:29pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "My reply" on 12/16/02 1:58pm
>>>I do however, in the world of experience think that in
>>>order to engauge in conversations about morality, one
>>>most postulate that morality exists to begin with,
>>>though it may well be the case that it doesn't.
>>
>>Not necessarily. A noncognitivist can easily become a
>>part of conversations about morality. I myself am a
>>witness to this event.
>
>The problem is that if one engauges in a debate with
>one who doesn't postulate the existance of morality,
>then there really isn't a debate to begin with.
Sure there is. A noncognitivist can easily debate a cognitivist on the existence of morality.
>>Hmm, how about this hypothetical case. Suppose
>>killing an innocent person would decrease the overall
>>pain in the world by forever preventing a multitude of
>>people from having the non-lethal flu. What does your
>>ethical philosophy say about this?
>
>I would say the denial of that person's will to live
>and the harm inflicted both on that person and that
>person's family by their death is a far greater harm
>than people having to suffer from the flu.
I think you may have missed the point of the question: the decrease of pain in the world as a result the death. Suppose in this scenario that this person is some homeless guy who has no living relatives or friends, and that the death of this person does in fact decrease the overall pain in the world, so that the amount of pain done against this person is nowhere near the amount of pain decreased by the individual’s death. In this hypothetical case, a lot less pain is resulted in the world by killing this person. No more getting a certain nasty flu that lasts for 10 months before getting over it, for trillions upon trillions of people everywhere. I know this is very hypothetical, but it nonetheless puts the philosophy to an interesting test.
>>As you might guess, the main beef I have about
>>utilitarian ethics is that it often fails to
>>sufficiently take into account the concept of justice,
>>a concept which I believe is fundamental to a sound
>>metaethical theory.
>
>That depends on what one considers justice. Justic
>often takes the form of revenge. It often is the case
>that because someone hurt someone else, the other
>person feels the need to hurt them back. I'm not
>saying this is a wrong feeling, but it doesn't much
>sound like justice to me. I'd be interested to know
>what it is you consider just and why.
I was thinking in terms of fairness. It seems highly unjust, for instance, to kill an innocent person so that the flu is removed among many people.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 