the argument is that you can, even if roughly, measure and compare well-being. Medicine can be seen as a branch of this.
-
-
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*
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
you can just add that you can't decrease the well-being of the few for the many
-
You can but other people will disagree with you.
-
but they would be ok with decreasing well-being which is also immoral
-
You'd have to argue that. I would also argue that. Its not objectively true. Its a judgement call & depends on your premise.
-
I just don't see how knowingly decreasing well-being is consistent with morality.
-
That's what people who argue that you increase the sum of wellbeing more by enslaving a few or killing for organs wld say too.
-
I don't think they can by adding the concept of summing it all up. Besides, suffering is felt on an individual level.
-
That's what we'd argue, yes. But they cld say "Kill one person & he's no longer suffering. 6 ppl using his organs aren't either'
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yep. I found a counterexample to that though: finding out about it would reduce comfort for a part of the populus.
-
Utilitarianism has deeper problems, though. Its main principle should be a conclusion, not an axiom.
-
that's very common in philosophy. Specially "philosophy" of religion.
End of conversation
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.