| binary solo said: I start from the premise that everyone is someone's loved one, so everyone is equal in whatever scenario you care to imagine (the assumption being that the people whose lives hang in the balance of your decision are innocent parties). The thing is there's no right answer here, there's only what's right for you. It is right that you save your loved one's life knowing that through no fault of your own someone else will die. It can be analysed both from a utilitarian point of view and moral point of view, both ways of looking at it are valid, and you can compare and contrast the outcomes suggested by both methods of analysis. So misery to happiness ratio (cost/benefit) can be esitmated to determine which outcome is likely to lead to greatest net benefit. And you can consider the morally correct approach, if you can in fact tie down morality sufficiently for people to agree on the fundamentals. My moral code (NO!!!!) |
Yes, but the question is if you're willing to do anything for YOUR love. YOU don't love everybody. I'm sure that if you were asked to save any person you loved, versus an random person B, you would choose the loved one (and not a question of SHOULDs, but WOULDs).
No, no, no. This ISN'T a question of morality. Like I said, don't make this a utilitarian thing. I'm not trying to make a railroad question with the killing another person. It's a question of if you're willing to put love ahead of morality. To get you out of that mindset, I'm going to change choice B into "Killing 2 people". There? So now you're sacrificing more than you'll save. What WOULD you do? Would you sacrifice your son in order to feel like some Greek philosopher, or would you act from the bottom of your heart (and what is that heart like?)
So are we on the same page? NOT about morality or utilitarianism. Simply YOU want something, what are you willing to do to GET it?
Essay Pro
