No, but it's justified because one action is objectively less harmful to well-being than the other.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you justify something with morality if you believe there is no foundation to morality itself.
@OH - I'm not asking, I'm arguing they are not synonymous. How am I being circular exactly?
And yes, the onus is on the acting agent. And if we agree that death is in conflict with well-being than any action that intentionally causes death is, by definition, immoral. Again, that doesn't mean it's not justified, because there may be good reason, as with the train example.
Did you even bother to watch the short portion of the video I provided?
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor
I'd vote for Trump
|
Last edited by DwnWthVwls; 06-01-2018 at 08:35 PM.
|