that's it. That's moral objectivism.
-
-
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'
-
Whereas 6 people were suffering & one person was well, now 6 people are well & one is dead but not suffering. The moral choice.
-
We would disagree because *as well as* wellbeing, we think every individual has the right to pursue own happiness unhindered.
- 7 more replies
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.