it still isnt your fault that brakes failed and so your conscious is still clear, if you choose to kill a person then you made that choice. 10000000 people or not — David Solman
it still isnt your fault that brakes failed and so your conscious is still clear, if you choose to kill a person then you made that choice. 10000000 people or not — David Solman
If you are choosing someone to die then you are the cause of someone's death. If you let the 3 workers die then you played zero part in the accident because none of it was caused by you. Lives will be lost either way and there will be suffering either way I don't think you have the right to doom someone's life just to save more lives if they were safe to begin with.Oh, wait. I misunderstood. You think it would be ok to let the Death Star destroy Alderaan rather than drop Jar-Jar Binks down the vent pipe into the reactor core. — T Clark
If you are choosing someone to die then you are the cause of someone's death. If you let the 3 workers die then you played zero part in the accident because none of it was caused by you. Lives will be lost either way and there will be suffering either way I don't think you have the right to doom someone's life just to save more lives if they were safe to begin with. — David Solman
Which might sound good, but probably doesn't accurately reflect the actual business of doing ethics or being in an ethical conundrum. Instead of 'feeling' ethics we just problematize it, and instead of practicing or considering the practice of more real world situations which demand ethical attention we shift our efforts toward a puzzle-solving motif where the focus becomes theory construction and the categorization of ethical attitudes based upon a seemingly unrealistic hypothetical. — Larynx
Well, you're right. Consequentialism has practical uses; as I said we instinctively look to effects of our actions. In a sense it's like scientific theory that is approximate in nature - works most of the time except in rare instances e.g. a blackhole singularity. I think the Trolley problem and others like it are evidence for the case that a complete and consistent theory for morality isn't possible or is difficult to achieve. What do you think? — TheMadFool
We follow our hearts — T Clark
But it's important to observe that something is lost in translation when we move the ethics from the personal to the abstract; the specific to the approximate. — Larynx
The heart has reasons the mind knows not. — TheMadFool
Last time I checked our thoughts did not have labels attached to them; 'heart' or 'mind'. — Pseudonym
The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart. — Blaise Pascal
Its not an unreasonable principle that our intuition (which is what I'm presuming you mean by heart) is privy to information that our conscious brain is not, but then we are still left with distinguishing one from the other. What reason do we have for thinking our first thoughts are more 'intuitive' than our later ones? — Pseudonym
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.