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'
-
-
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 @toxicpath
Or if I had their fate in my hands. Think trolley dilemma or perhaps being in charge of soldiers. Sacrifice one for the rest?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I don't think the trolley problem is realistic and war is a moral failure to begin with.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @toxicpath
Its a thought experiment to show that our moral instincts are not logical. It is but it happens & ppl have to choose.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @toxicpath
Fun thing is, I solve that problem with maths, lol.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.