Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Then no, because these problems can obviously be mitigated, so you revert back to the value of life over property.
|
How do you revert back to it when you haven't established that it's so?
Quote:
|
The question is, is it ethical to kill someone to protect property? And if you believe the value of life is greater than the value of property, then no, it is not.
|
Your beliefs are irrelevant if you can't base them on some principle or theory. And unless the principle is "preserve life no matter what because life is an absolute ultimate good", which no one seems to be saying, there's no principle being defended here.
Quote:
|
Is it ethical to kill 10,000 people to improve the quality of life of 10,000,000 people? Or is it more ethical to leave the people alone, knowing their quality of life will not be optimal?
|
I know the answer Bentham would give, and the rationale he would give. But I have no freaking clue about you or anyone else in here.
Quote:
|
The value of our life is not determined by individual actions.
|
What
is it determined by, then? And why do you think so?
Quote:
|
Working through these things just helps people understand the ramifications and the moral weight of decisions when there are real stakes.
|
Couldn't agree more. If only people would actually do this.
EDIT: I should say that I'm responding to your posts and not Yooh's because at least you're partway to making a point. Yooh isn't even in the ballpark, he's in "not even wrong" territory.