Kasz216 said:
Well for example. Sterlyzing everyone who has a genetic disorder now will cause less suffering over the long term as nobody will be born with stuff like taysachs disease. |
If you want to take it to an individual plane, if those people do have kids, they are personally responsible for all the suffering of their children, and the generations after them. In that example though, there might be the third option of eventual gene therpay or other treatments that can appear with scientific progress. But I get what you mean, there is also the classic paradox of the hospital with one healthy man and four with severe organ failures, is it moral to kill the healthy man if his organs will allow the other four guys to live?
Such situations might be a flaw in my definition, but remember that the absolute morality championed by different churches is often used to commit even worse atrocities against individuals, for much more arbitrary reasons. I also think, since there can be an actual debate, with real world facts about what is more moral (IE best for the most people) it is the best definition so far. Winston Churchills famous quote of "Democracy is without a doubt the worst form of government, if you disregard all others" comes to mind.
I LOVE ICELAND!








