Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:32:35
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six???, posted by Mark H. on February 28, 2005, at 20:23:12
> Of course there are lots of qualifiers that would come into play in a real-life situation, but your scenario specifically eliminates those.
Yes, it is somewhat contrived ;-)
>As a result, it comes down to "do nothing and *allow* six people to die" versus "do something and directly *kill* one person."
Yes.
The reason for this is that we try to come up with moral theories that are acceptable to us and that seem to prescribe the *right* course of action. We test the worth of moral theories against cases such as these.
It is one thing to come up with a moral ideal..
It is another thing to be able to show people what a good ideal it is (to show them why they *should* adopt it)..
And it is another thing again to figure out what that theory tells us we *should* do in different cases..
So much can depend on the way in which we describe the case..> In our litigious society, there may not be much room for utilitarianism in this example.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETHICS AND LAW.
Some laws are immoral e.g., the laws that allowed slavery.
Some laws prohibit things that are not immoral all by themselves e.g., stop at a red light.
Most often it is considered one of our moral duties to obey the law but our legal and ethical duties can come into conflict.I am not worried about whether the actions are legally reprehensible or not..
Just whether they are morally reprehensible or not..What is the right / wrong thing to do?
Is a different question to
What is the legal / illegal thing to do?Does that make sense???
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464517
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/464635.html