Yes, they'd argue their sacrifice so much increased the well-being of everyone else that suffering reduced more overall.
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.
-
In the trolley dilemma, they are all strangers. Save one or five? Most wld save 5 in trolley case but 1 in organ case.Logical? No
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
death is the ultimate loss of well-being
-
Its neutral. Dead people neither suffer nor feel well. (I don't subscribe to this view but it is logical)
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.