Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil  what kind of ethic is that? What's the name? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JD Not sure what you are asking? Situational? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TB 'cause we're asking questions about moral judgments. One needs ethical theories in terms of which they justify moral judgments. |
Not intimate with ethical theory - I'd say mine are Biblical ethics.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TB Because convenience and reward can't remove an intrinsic evil. |
Is death intrinsically evil?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TB Certainly not the 5 yr. old who is hit while chasing his ball. |
So where do you draw the line? How many 5 year olds benefit from being able to go to school in a bus?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JD I don't think your analogy works, senor Tom. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TB Just asking you to justify your belief. You originally voted no. So you prima facie don't think convenience outweighs human life. I voted yes, so I agree with you. Just seeking moral justification. |
Again - I first went with my "gut" - my default moral position is: preventable death is preferable to convenience - however, once I began to rationalize potential scenarios and began to quantify the hypothetical rewards associated with the "convenience", I began to realize that the risk-reward metric may be more complex than my knee-jerk reaction. It's all about context.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JD depends on what the risk and reward is - I'd say morality as the default. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TB I don't get that. Re-phrase. |
Depending upon the risk-reward situation - morality would be the default position - if the moral risk-reward is null or not applicable, then the determining factor could be several - return on investment, customer satisfaction, etc...
at the risk of being perceived as repetitive...It's all about context.