The action would in fact be wrong if the other person were to help more then me, however, but I don't know that, so I therefore did nothing wrong in that scenario. — RosettaStoned
I disagree. The court was right in it's decision. The men should have waited for Parker to die if they were so sure he would.Yes it would, but my lack of omniscience prevents me from knowing that. I would feel really regretful if such a situation were to occur, but I wouldn't be "wrong", because it was better than the alternative of potentially limiting the amount of good in the world. — RosettaStoned
I disagree. The court was right in it's decision. The men should have waited for Parker to die if they were so sure he would.
This does not, however, apply to your case as you judge yourself more valuable than the other and hence it is not you who should die. — Heiko
An evil act would be good if it helped more than it harmed — RosettaStoned
Something being evil doen't make it wrong, and something being good (or "holy", if you prefer) doesn't make it right. — RosettaStoned
Oh, if it is inevitable the question is a different one. You cannot know - that's difference. You do know it when he died. But maybe it is you and he will survive.If the person was going to die, then why would it be bad to kill him if it was inevitable? — RosettaStoned
It is much better to base actions off of reason than faith, even if it means doing some evil things. — RosettaStoned
How can it ever be moral to make an evil act for the greater good? — Jamesk
Okay, but what is it (ontologically) that you'd say makes anything moral or immoral? — Terrapin Station
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.