Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor
sure but again coming to the conclusion that well being is the most important outcome is a subjective moral call
thus if well being is your justification, it is a justification based on your morality
the 2nd situation is actually exactly the same as the first give or take 7 lives, neither would die if no action were to be taken, and again the justification would be on the moral grounds of the greatest well being
|
I'll address this since it's not full of bs like OHs post.
First, I never said that well-being as a moral outcome isn't subjective. I said if we agree it is, and specified it's the position I take, than "everything I've already said". If you have some other idea about what morality is, that's fine, I said from the start I disagree.
Second, I don't know why it's so hard to understand that justification is not dictated solely by morality(im not denying it doesnt factor in but it is not the arbiter of justification). You regurgitating this point doesn't make it true. Justification is about reasoning, you can have good reasons to do even subjectively immoral things. What is your definition of reason that requires I consider morality to be reasonable?
Third, sorry you're correct, I misunderstood the tracks example.
Is this not a philosophical discussion? I never once said I was right, I will however say that my approach to morality would make for a more consistent and probably better society than subjective morality.
Lastly, idgaf what you think about Dillahunty or anyone else.. I only care about the ideas, so you can both stop using ad hominem, assertions, and no true scotsman bs as an argument. "He's not a real philosopher". We are all philosophers. Also, well-being does have applications, what doesn't is subjective morality. How the hell do you apply that in a useful fashion?