You have begged the question.
Really? So we should NOT choose the best available option according to our best knowledge? Should we choose the
worst option?
I seem to recall a post where you acted against this very principle, throwing a fit when I pointed out that I thought you had an agenda (and this repeated)… You threw the rule book at me and at least seemed very upset, even though I had no intention of “harming” you. Was this your fault, or mine? I claim it was “neutral,” whatever that means.
Which post was that? A link will do just fine. I really don’t like these empty posts.
People start wars. I simply repeat, that I refuse to take responsibility for your “parsing” of my words.
E. So it’s right because “an instinct” “takes over”? Is this really what you want to say? You see no problem here? How about claiming that my “violent instinct” “takes over” when I get mad at someone for cutting in line, so I kill him?
Does cutting into the line put you into mortal danger?
It is BETTER that 5 live than that 1 live, all things being equal.
But all things are not being equal. Cutting into a line does NOT put you into mortal danger.
The “simple intent” is fine, and in casual daily practice for the most part “do no harm” will work.
Thank you for coming clean. Which is about 99.99% of the time. Lifeboat situations are very rare - in real life. But they need to be examined in these thought experiments -
for fun! Please see it below.
But not everything is casual, is it. VL’s system, which he has been touting as vastly superior to the backward-thinking Catholic system…
Did I, really? Example, please… with link. I don’t think I ever badmouthed the Catholic system, and if you considered some of my posts as “uncharitable”, you could have asked for clarification.
… is an oversimplified version of a highly flawed normative ethics called consequentialism which is completely at odds with the Gospel.
Ah, so if something is at odds with the Gospel, then it is immediately and automatically “highly flawed”?
It is NOT a compassionate or loving way to live according to the Church.
But the church is no authority outside the circle of the believers.
This system gives us things like euthanasia, abortion, contraception, no-fault divorce, and all manner of other bad, bad stuff.
Those are only “bad, bad stuff” according to some people.
On previous threads, Vera has argued from a typical consequentialism/proportionalism perspective. On this one, he seems to have made a bit of a mess by crafting 3 rules and adding a “don’t do to others …” principle and defining that as his system. I’m. It sure the current system can be named. It is not coherent.
What is incoherent about it? Maybe I should have included the Golden Rule as the “zeroeth rule”, but I thought it was obvious - because it is the one and only principle which has been shared across the ages and across the societies - AND which makes very good sense. The rules I presented are the simple, logical corollaries of the Golden Rule.
Is one really supposed to prevent ALL harm that he possibly can? Such that whenever one hears of harm being done, he must literally do whatever he possibly can to make it stop? That does not seem wise at all.
It would be nice if you guys could get rid of this “all or nothing”, or “black and white” type of attitude. Every problem needs to be examined on its own.
So let us agree that in most, everyday situations those simple rules work just fine. And they work just fine WITHOUT any reference to some deity. We can examine the extreme cases, of course.
Answer to Rau’s post #37 and #42:
Now the more extreme situations the simple rules are problematic. Real life-threatening situations (not being cut off in the cashier’s line in a grocery store as e_c suggested
) can happen in two “flavors”. One, when you must react instinctively to an immediate danger, and the other one, where you have time to ponder your actions. If the situation demands immediate, instinctive reaction (and please use your sound mind in deciding how to discern them) there is no “ethics”, there is no “morality”. Your instincts take over, and you react automatically.
In an actual real lifeboat situation (when you foresee that some resources will run out and you cannot do anything about it) where you are NOT in immediate danger, but you will have to make some “him or me” type of decision eventually, I don’t think that there is a solution which will satisfy everyone. Which simply supports the fact that
“ethics” is subjective. You can invoke the altruism and offer a self-sacrifice in order to save others, or you can use the “might makes right” and throw out the weaker in order to save yourself. But there is no objective method which will decide that one is better than the other. It is all a matter of “taste”.
Maybe you will contend that the rules I suggested are only applicable in everyday circumstances. I would agree, that this is all what you can expect. Special cases need special considerations - which is NOT necessarily special “pleading”. But the point is that these rules need no appeal to some deity. And that appeal to some deity will not create a system which will “compel” anyone to follow their suggestions.
Sorry, but I am definitely politically incorrect, and no, I will not accept responsibility for other people’s thoughts.
