You'd have to argue that. I would also argue that. Its not objectively true. Its a judgement call & depends on your premise.
-
-
because it is not moral to knowingly decrease someone else's well-being.
-
To increase that of multiple others? You'd need to break this down logically. Can you? I can't. You 'feel' it is wrong. So do I.
-
remember this is an evolved trait. Doesn't have to be logical. It just has to work.
-
Then its not objectively moral. Not everyone feels this way. It varies in different situations. It can't be justified logically
-
how do you justify logically livers?
-
That doesn't make any sense. We're justifying killing one to save many or letting many die to preserve one & ethics thereof.
-
But I'm bored now. Point was, many arguments on best way to achieve human wellbeing & we'll be arguing them forever.
-
true. But st bottom they are all science fiction scenarios or problems we have solved, like not harvesting organs.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
why is it logical to sum up the morality of groups like it had units?
-
Because they do. Groups are made up of individual people. People are the focus of our aim for an objective morality.
-
we are not talking about a physical law or measurable units.
-
Why not? I thought it was individuals - units - you were concerned about. Also justifying rationally, you said.
-
I'm not in disagreement w you. I just don't think we can be objective. We have to agree premises, argue for them, work from there
-
we have to identify a goal and what's the best way to achieve it. Doesn't have to be demonstrated logically.
-
How else can it be demonstrated. Your argument needs to work logically or it has no credibility.
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.