this is to say that, as long as it makes people happy than it is "moraly justifiable"
such as to say, there is a rude ritch lady, whom will bestow her money to orphans upon her death. is it justifiable to kill her so that the children shall not suffer any longer?
2006-11-01 08:13:59 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Of course not. Even if you put aside the wrongness of killing someone, your "calculus" still fails.
1) A woman lives happily for a while while children are suffering. Then the future children who are suffering at the time get money.
2) A woman is killed and the current children who are suffering get relief. Then the future children who are suffering at the time get no money.
The flaw in your logic is that it assumes a fixed number of suffering children. In reality, there is a constant influx of suffering children. Relieving the suffering of current children will not help future children.
Another flaw in your logic is the "makes people happy" part. Killing people for their money, for whatever reason, has long term societal affects that will make more people unhappy. It makes society unstable, and the standard of living goes down. It lalso makes more children suffer in the long run.
2006-11-01 08:15:49 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your example is flawed.
"there is a rude ritch lady, whom will bestow her money to orphans upon her death. is it justifiable to kill her so that the children shall not suffer any longer?"
That certainly wont make the lady happy. No one ever said that making some people happy *at the great expense of others* was morally justifiable.
2006-11-01 16:17:51 · answer #2 · answered by The Resurrectionist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You straw-man ethical calculus.
Ethical calculus does not ONLY look at the pleasure, it also looks at the pain. In such a case as you describe, her children will suffer her loss, her death will deny her the potential for future reconciliation and change of heart to a less stingy, miserly life. So no, it would still be immoral, even under ethical calculus.
Still, I temper ethical calculus with some amount of deontolgy. The idea that it's ALL a pleasure/suffering equation is a miniscule speck colder than even I can quite accept, and I don't even believe in free will...
2006-11-01 16:17:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it justifiable to harrass all people of Middle Eastern descent to prevent some from flying bombs into buildings? Of course not. But we'll find a way to justify it anyway.
2006-11-01 16:19:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like Machiavelli - the end justifies the means.
I think that works for like cooking and art, and other creative pursuits, but not the best rule of thumbs for morality.
2006-11-01 16:19:37 · answer #5 · answered by daisyk 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋