Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev. Todd Ruddell  Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil Quote:
Originally Posted by victorbravo
The key is assumption of known (or guessed at) risks. That's why the auto example would be acceptable and this proposal would not be. | Say that tested it in Russia for the past 10 years. They don't know how many deaths it would produce, but 75,000 was an average. The intention isn't to kill, it is an unintended by-product. They do know that deaths will occur, roughly 75,000, but it could be 65,000 one year. And, as I said, they're dedicated to making it safer.
They put it up for a vote here, which way would you go? | How could they *know*? It seems to me that there are moral and immoral uses of this convenience machine. Hypothetical arguments for or against based on outcomes does not overturn the right of the individual to weigh these chioces--Automible drivers ought to know and take responsibility for the dangers of driving--the same with your "convenience machine". Convenience is not a wicked goal--it costs no lives, and murder is a sin. |
I never said that it was a wicked goal. I'm actually for it, and cars, etc.
I tried to get people to give moral justifications for actions.
Thought it would bring out someo interesting points.
Apparently some people feel threatened that I'd ask them to present moral justifications for actions rather than taking things for granted.
I repent in sackcloth and ashes.
As Bruce Lee said in Enter The Dragon: "Don't think,
feel."
No more of this
and this
and a lot more of this
and this
