but this ignores the decreased well-being of the enslaved.
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.
-
the fact we don't don't this already tells you we've solved this one.
-
WEIRD societies have. Historically, no. In other parts of the world, no. Sacrifice to the group is also a human thing.
-
I am in favour of the rights of the individual but this is intuitive rather than logical. So its not objectively morally right.
-
I might well sacrifice my own life to save 6 others in another scenario. Either Sam Harris or Michael Shermer looks at this.
-
As a variation of the trolley experiment. Shows it to be a brain bug of ours. We'd be more logical in saving other things.
-
it's not a bug. 6 random strangers are unlikely to carry your same genes.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
they would have to have 0 empathy for the person being killed which is immoral. It's never seem a rational argument to me.
-
Or perhaps they have empathy for the 6 suffering from organ failure & rationalise that dead ppl can't suffer so better overall.
-
yeah...but dead
-
Yes. Is one person dead better or worse than six people suffering horribly?
-
I'd say they are independent instances of well-being that can not be compared.
-
Why? Logically?
-
because it is not moral to knowingly decrease someone else's well-being.
-
To increase that of multiple others? You'd need to break this down logically. Can you? I can't. You 'feel' it is wrong. So do I.
- 10 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.