Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor
you never do, really
but how can you claim which outcomes are desirable without appealing to ethics
I would think the death penalty for any first offense of drink drivin' would result in overall "less harm" in the long run, but I think most of us would reject it on the basis that it's unjust
you could wheel it around to some other kind of utilitarian argument, but I think the answer is really just that some things are wrong by default
I'm not married to that idea, but I also think utilitarianism is an attempted easy answer to an incredibly difficult question
|
No, I mean ultimately your system of ethics is developed on some basis, which is most likely utilitarian. The default is deciding some abstract concepts are right or wrong, based on utilitarian principles. So that you don't have to judge outcomes case by case (even though those things are entangled, as frown said).
Also, the whole idea of an ethical system like this is that you can (in theory) determine which outcomes are desirable without ethics, in this case by somehow measuring people's happiness. No ethics are coming in there