|
|
#61 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Let's talk examples instead so you may be able to better explain yourself. I'll use one from the video.
You are a doctor. You've got five patients about to die if they don't get organ transplants immediately. In the next room, you see Chuck, a man who is perfectly healthy. You could let the five patients die, or you could kill Chuck and use his organs to save the five patients. What would you do, and why is this moral call right/wrong, and why is it objective? |
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
The Doctor
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 32
Posts: 6,047
|
Ask Chuck if he would give up his life to save five people. If he says no, it's wrong. The people with failing organs do not have a right to his healthy ones unless by that man's (chuck's) will. Your rights (in this case, right to survival) end when they infringe upon another's rights.
It is objective because the 'correctness' of a given action is often determined by the average disposition of the masses. While not always best for society, what is morally acceptable depends on your culture. |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 | |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
Quote:
Also, that isn't the definition of "objective." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
The Doctor
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 32
Posts: 6,047
|
Still no, for the same reason
And oops, that was subjective, not objective |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
The point though is that there's no "objective" answer to these kinds of questions. Morality isn't objective.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|