I've heard of that book before. I'll do a bit of reading about the book first, but I might end up putting it on my list to read. It's a long, long list though - and I'm a very slow reader.
I think having rigid, unshakable convictions is what is dangerous. I can't see how torturing one baby can be considered worse than killing every single baby, every adult and all life on Earth. It seems like a belief that relies so much on emotional reasoning that it can't even really be debated. If it exists in the emotional realm you can't really debate it in the logical realm - you believe what you believe and that's that. If emotional reasoning prevents someone from making utilitarian decisions, especially with regards to human life, I think that is undeniably dangerous.
I think if you can logically determine that the ends will justify the means, then it should be all systems go. If you're doing evil to accomplish good, you've got to remember that you're doing evil *and* good. Focusing on the evil biases your argument. You've got to look at the balance between good and evil, and I think the best way to do that is by utilitarianism. One life for billions - I think the balance is pretty obvious and I think the evil is more than justified through utilitarian eyes.
If you can logically justify a moral decision, do what you want. I don't see why there should be any exceptions.
I thought the matter over some more, and concluded you're probably right. Still, I don't think I personally could ever torture a baby to death, EVEN if I knew it was the best (or the least worst) option. I simply couldn't do it. I also still think it CAN be a very dangerous idea to believe that the end justifies the means. I think history has very, very clearly shown that.
Are certain things INTRINSICALLY right/wrong?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I've heard of that book before. I'll do a bit of reading about the book first, but I might end up putting it on my list to read. It's a long, long list though - and I'm a very slow reader.
I think having rigid, unshakable convictions is what is dangerous. I can't see how torturing one baby can be considered worse than killing every single baby, every adult and all life on Earth. It seems like a belief that relies so much on emotional reasoning that it can't even really be debated. If it exists in the emotional realm you can't really debate it in the logical realm - you believe what you believe and that's that. If emotional reasoning prevents someone from making utilitarian decisions, especially with regards to human life, I think that is undeniably dangerous.
I think if you can logically determine that the ends will justify the means, then it should be all systems go. If you're doing evil to accomplish good, you've got to remember that you're doing evil *and* good. Focusing on the evil biases your argument. You've got to look at the balance between good and evil, and I think the best way to do that is by utilitarianism. One life for billions - I think the balance is pretty obvious and I think the evil is more than justified through utilitarian eyes.
If you can logically justify a moral decision, do what you want. I don't see why there should be any exceptions.
--
BLAh81
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I thought the matter over some more, and concluded you're probably right. Still, I don't think I personally could ever torture a baby to death, EVEN if I knew it was the best (or the least worst) option. I simply couldn't do it. I also still think it CAN be a very dangerous idea to believe that the end justifies the means. I think history has very, very clearly shown that.