you can just add that you can't decrease the well-being of the few for the many
-
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
but they would be ok with decreasing well-being which is also immoral
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toxicpath
You'd have to argue that. I would also argue that. Its not objectively true. Its a judgement call & depends on your premise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I just don't see how knowingly decreasing well-being is consistent with morality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toxicpath
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I don't think they can by adding the concept of summing it all up. Besides, suffering is felt on an individual level.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toxicpath
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'
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @toxicpath
Whereas 6 people were suffering & one person was well, now 6 people are well & one is dead but not suffering. The moral choice.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Its neutral. Dead people neither suffer nor feel well. (I don't subscribe to this view but it is logical)
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.