Your utilitarian answer sort of ignores the question: I said the death would be painless, quick and unexpected. The loner/homeless person wouldn't have time to suffer. You mentioned that you would suffer, but that isn't necessarily so. You could be a sociopath.
I agree with what you say about 'gut' morality, but I do think that is exactly why people are against abortion. I think that fundamentally, people value human life. I think that our gut morality often conflicts with conclusions that we might arrive at by utilitarian logic. That is really the point I was driving at with my questioning.
edit -
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Different morale theories exist that can tell us what to do, such as various religious doctrines or moral principles like utilitarianism. So then I ask you, which one should you choose and why?
|
I don't want to seem to dodge this, but I don't have an answer for you. I'll try to explain where I'm coming from instead.
I typically use some form of utilitarian logic to deal with moral questions, but lately I've started to feel like this approach falls somewhat short of the ideals that we're used to. I'm not religious, but it seems like we treat human life as sacred as a matter of habit.
For example, if I were pressed to choose between a painful death for a dog vs a quick death for a human, I would undoubtedly choose for the dog to die. I can't possibly rationalize this as being based on suffering - that's not it at all. It's the waste of a human life that irks me.