What's your point? How would you respond to the trolley problem yourself?My point here is — I like sushi
That's fair.That said, if the case is merely of more lives surviving then I would lean into more lives surviving as I value human lives. — I like sushi
:up: :up:I would not intentionally murder a human being who did not cause the situation just to save more people. — L'éléphant
Also, to me, I would not intentionally murder a human being who did not cause the situation just to save more people. Circumstances such as that are unavoidable, and luck has to do with it. — L'éléphant
I have already in my previous post corroborated with a link to the wiki article on care ethics along with its founder Carol Gilligan.Subset of Normative Ethics would be more accurate I think?
Correct me if I am wrong. — I like sushi
First off, I think you misunderstood what care ethics is.Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. Ethics of Care is kind of stating this is ‘okay’ and if it was saving your child you would likely sacrifice many lives for one. — I like sushi
:up:You fail to make the case that care ethics "avoids responsibility" because you haven't stated clearly what you mean by (moral) "responsibility". As the linked wiki article points out, care is proposed as a virtue (benevolence), that is, a moral – non-instrumental - habit. Do you believe virtue ethics, of which care ethics is a subset, "avoids responsibility" too? — 180 Proof
And I'm still stuck here until I articulated enough that this kind of thinking is what we do when we discard ethics and start playing the zero-sum game. Ethics is not zero sum.Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. — I like sushi
Okay that's correct -- murder is not the first reaction.Why on earth is ‘murder’ the first thing that springs to mind in your head? How about just stealing the cure and facing the consequences if caught? — I like sushi
I'm trying to tell you that what you think is ethics, it's really not. When you use the family relationships as a measure of your ethical decision, you're no longer talking about ethics, but something else.Also, I am nit quite sure how any of this is addressing my claims in the OP? — I like sushi
All ethical systems are ethics. But not all decisions are ethical or ethics. One could decide based on height who to deprive of benefits, this is not ethics.All ethical systems are ethical. That is why they like degrees of accountability. The blame lies with the system rather than the individual - if there is any poor outcome. — I like sushi
how to use both the Ethics of Care (the interpersonal) and the Applied Ethics (the variety of life) without holding fast to either. — I like sushi
That's a pretty central issue in my own considerations, too. The advantage of virtue ethics seems to be in the recognition that ethics is too complex to be captured in some finite set of rules; one has to trust one's judgement, and so one ought work to develop the capacity to judge. Hence cultivating virtue becomes the mark of a life well lived.
Care ethics serves to bind virtue to context.
So I don't see any opposition between care ethics and virtue ethics. But you seem to be juxtaposing them...
And I don't see justification as a negative thing; isn't giving leisurely consideration to your actions post hoc a good idea, if it is done with an eye to improvement? Seems to me to be an essential part of the process of developing one's virtue... A feedback loop.
Seems that the OP has some quite complex and intriguing consequences. — Banno
Nah! They just tend to care about different things. — I like sushi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.