Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire 
Not intimate with ethical theory - I'd say mine are Biblical ethics.
|
Okay... never read which chapter this was addressed in.
Quote:
|
Is death intrinsically evil?
|
That's my belief.
Quote:
|
So where do you draw the line? How many 5 year olds benefit from being able to go to school in a bus?
|
How many familes benefit economically from their dead Grandmother's will. They could do so much good. Give millions to charity, but, alas, she's a tough old crone, and she's gonna hang on, in a delirious state, for the next 15 years.
And, you're not looking at all the altneratives. Why not home shcool? How many children are spiritually and mentally messed up from the education received in the American public school system?
The question isn't as easy as you're trying to make it.
Quote:
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.  |
I've only heard "just so" stories from you and vague appeals to "doing the math" but no hard data. Still seems like you're going with your gut - "It just can't be wrong to drive cars!"
Quote:
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. |
Sounds Utilitarian. A main problem is when doing the math. No one has been able to compute or measure "risk-reward" or "pleasure-pain" scenarios. Do you have a device that does that? Show your work
the harm 75,000 human lives receive
vs.
the economic et al benefits millions receive
= ?