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'
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 -
-
-
all you have to do is show that the system works as intended. We obviously don't harvest organs because society wouldn't work
-
Why not? If we agreed that was moral, it would work like that. Can we leave it now please?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
we are not talking about the inverse square law. We are talking about an evolved trait. It just needs to work.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.