3 ms·
I think you're missing the point. As you say, there are better statements of utilitarianism, that more closely approximate how you feel. Other people feel oth
by thisrod 17y ago
I think you're missing the point. As you say, there are better statements of utilitarianism, that more closely approximate how you feel. Other people feel otherwise. A fascist would reject your argument, and might well kill the children, because fascists think that the welfare of society trumps the suffering of individual humans.
The basic question of ethics is this: can we persuade reasonable fascists that they're wrong, or must we keep nuking them from orbit?
- Niten 17y agoWhat Harris is arguing is that, regardless of what I feel or what your hypothetical fascist feels about this problem, there is a definite, objective answer to this question, not to be found by comparing opinions, but by empirically examining nature and human society. I should have been more clear about this. In my previous post, I'm supposing that killing the children would be the wrong thing to do, as I strongly believe our current understanding of human psychology and sociology indicates. But I could be wrong, and whether I'm right or wrong about this moral decision is not a matter of opinion, but is fundamentally a scientific question. This, as I understand it, is Harris's point.
- foldr 17y ago>What Harris is arguing is that, regardless of what I feel or what your hypothetical fascist feels about this problem, there is a definite, objective answer to this question, not to be found by comparing opinions, but by empirically examining nature and human society. Ok, so now all he owes us is an explanation of how to do that.