I don't think they can by adding the concept of summing it all up. Besides, suffering is felt on an individual level.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @HPluckrose @toxicpath
We would disagree because *as well as* wellbeing, we think every individual has the right to pursue own happiness unhindered.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
the fact we don't don't this already tells you we've solved this one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toxicpath
WEIRD societies have. Historically, no. In other parts of the world, no. Sacrifice to the group is also a human thing.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @toxicpath
I am in favour of the rights of the individual but this is intuitive rather than logical. So its not objectively morally right.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @toxicpath
I might well sacrifice my own life to save 6 others in another scenario. Either Sam Harris or Michael Shermer looks at this.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @toxicpath
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
it's not a bug. 6 random strangers are unlikely to carry your same genes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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
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.