We evolved core moral emotions as social mammals and core needs. These enable a stable, consistent, very basic morality.
Other philosophers would use other systems. Some cld be utilitarian & say enslaving some improves wellbeing overall.
-
-
Others could be highly individualist or highly community-orientated & this all affects the premise from which we measure.
-
-
Yes. That's fairly standard and I agree tho I also have the moral right to drink myself to death if I so choose.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
but this ignores the decreased well-being of the enslaved.
-
Yes, they'd argue their sacrifice so much increased the well-being of everyone else that suffering reduced more overall.
-
Also you could kill one person to save many with their organs & increase wellbeing more overall so that is morally better.
-
Could also go w eugenics & argue the sick, mentally ill & unintelligent shld be allowed to die to improve human wellbeing overall
-
I'd disagree w/ all that & go with wellbeing of every individual but this is not objectively right choice. Got to argue for it
-
Admittedly, this is all pretty useless for us to determine, since Moral Philosophy started using empirics in the 50s.
-
And their current working theory is virtue ethics, pretty much identical to Stoicism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics …
-
Nooooo! Philosophy! *runs away*
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.