What is your opinion on moral calculus?

Question

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?

yes, and it is in philosophy, However I am trying to get all groups of all people to think on this question.

Answer 1

Shouldn't this question be in 'Philosophy'?

I don't know what you mean by 'moral calculus' (maths never was my strong point), but I don't see how it can be justifiable to kill anyone.

Answer 2

mixing Morality with Science/Mathematics is a sure way of get yourself in trouble. Pure Science is based on something called the Scientific Method. You develop a theory, you gather data about your theory, and then you evaluate this data to see if your theory is correct or not. Morality questions, such as justifiable killing cannot be tested this way. In your case, if we look at it purely scientifically, then yes, her death will lead to a positive outcome. But, obviously in life, the Ends do not always justify the Means.

Answer 3

I think that moral calculus, moral relativism, and the term morally justifiable mean very VERY different things. Your example is very poor and your question doesn't make sense given the actual definition of these phrases.

Obviously letting anyone do anything that makes them happy is not morally right. Serial Killers like to kill people to make them happy, but that is clearly wrong.

However I strongly favor supporting people in doing safe, sane, legal, and healthy things that make them happy. This includes wanting to be with a same-sex partner.

Answer 4

There is one overriding morality that applies for all people:

1) Violence against another is morally wrong unless in self-defense. This includes committing murder. It doesn't matter what wonderful things will come of the death; the person has a right to their life that is only forfeited when they incite violence against another.

2) Theft is always wrong; it infringes on someone's right to property. No matter what.

3) Justify all other moral judgements. The rest of morality, in my opinion, is open to debate. It depends on what you use as your source of morals, your reference: for some, it will be the Bible, Koran, and all other manner of holy writ, for others, it will be objective reality (Objectivism), for others, what society mandates, for still others, their internal feelings. It isn't wrong to make moral judgements- that's the way life should be. But you have to have justification for why you say something is right or wrong. Moral caluclus only works as long as you assign numerical values and stand by them, right? In my personal opinion, a lot of things that get morality pushed on them are actually morally neutral. If it makes people happy and doesn't violate the rules above, I will still make a value judgement, but it is right for them.

That's my thoughts on the subject, at least.

Answer 5

You are so off base, being gay isn't a moral issue, it's like say being born white, is being born white a moral calculus? No, people are born black , white, or brown because of genetics. Just like people are born Gay, genetics. Is it morally justifiable to be born with blond hair? You try to present yourself as some kind of theologian but you are really quite ignorant.

Answer 6

personal opinion-

I think each person has their own idea of what their moral compass is, and so it is difficult to say all people will be accepting of a ideal, so it would be hard to have a single voice on a moral decision.
I do not advocate the idea of sacrificing one for the good of many, as in your example.

Answer 7

Back to the old, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the one" issue.
No. It isn't justifiable.

But then again your question has nothing to do with the LGBT crowd either.

Answer 8

Your analogy is flawed. Gay sex doesn't harm anyone.