When it comes down to decide if production should continue, for which the likely outcome by educated public opinion on the decision to persist with an existing course of action, is amoral, unethical, and will continue with circumstances presently known to be negative, say loss of lives:
Why should a decision be made by a few chosen ‘wise’ people (corporate CEOs) or be based on ‘wise’ decisions ? These decisions are not necessarily ‘wise’, over the choice of larger pool of an educated audience ? (Apart from voting, which in itself could be arbitrary.)
Subsequent events prove that the loss of lives continue unabated should either choice be made, from a few select individuals or a pool of educated moral communities. If you knew the outcome would be unchanged, how would you choose ? Would more cooks necessarily spoil the broth ? What is the attraction or repulsion, of having a Nietzschean perspective over a Kantian one, when applied (as in practice) ? Should we let sleeping dogs lie ?
2007-01-02
05:39:42
·
2 answers
·
asked by
pax veritas
4