Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire  Not intimate with ethical theory - I'd say mine are Biblical ethics. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TB Okay... never read which chapter this was addressed in. |
?
ethics = the study of values - good and bad, right and wrong
Am I misunderstanding? I'd say the Bible from front to back is an ethics guide.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JD Is death intrinsically evil? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TB That's my belief. |
Not mine - don't suppose you'd like to back that up with some Scripture? Seeking to understand...
Quote:
|
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 our default moral guidance, as Christians, is "NAY". Who are we to judge the length of life or activities that "could be"?
Quote:
|
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?
|
And how many have come out just fine? How else will our children understand how to be "in the world, but not of the world" and "lights in the darkness"?
Quote:
|
The question isn't as easy as you're trying to make it.
|
Not trying to make it easy - just dealing with the implications.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JD 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 TB 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!" |
?? I think you are over-simplifying my position. I am proposing that
today we
both have made a tacit moral decision (and Tom
, I am assuming you do travel by automobile in some capacity) to support the automobile industry - we vote with our feet, if you will.
If you are suggesting that there is some overwhelming moral rationale we have not considered, I am willing to work it out with you, but I am also saying that the risk-reward matrix will be VERY complex, since we are not just discussing convenience, but true benefit, as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JD 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. |
Quote:
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
= ?
|
hypothetically?
75k dead because of the technology vs 150k saved because of timely travel = net 75k benefit - a no brainer