but they would be ok with decreasing well-being which is also immoral
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 -
-
-
I don't think it's intuitive because we are individuals.
-
Then explain logically why its better to preserve one person than save six?
-
because you can't decrease the well-being of one person to increase that of others.
-
That's an assertion not a logical argument.
-
it is a logical argument if you define morality as avoiding decreases, or maximizing well-being of individuals
-
But you have to justify logically why that is the best premise.
-
not really. It can include historical contrivances and just random luck. Logic has nothing to do with it.
-
OK, well you've now ruled out logic so you'll have to argue why its best to do that. Do you see my point? Many possible premises.
- 2 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.