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'
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.
-
We're going round in circles. Does that make it right? Our intuitions? Which have varied in time & place? No.
-
our evolved intuitions is all we have. There is nothing else.
-
And clearly they vary or we wouldn't be having these arguments for ever. Cultural differences. Historical differences.
-
I'd say that's the minority of cases. In the great majority it is easy to tell what is the most moral course of action.
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.