I just don't see how knowingly decreasing well-being is consistent with morality.
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.
-
I don't think there are many if you claim your goal is moral.
-
Then I have failed to show how different arguments would work for maximising wellbeing in different ways. Thought I was clear.
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.