3 ms·
> Things don't go immediately from unethical to a moral imperative, there is a substantial gap that needs to be crossed. I would accept that in the general cas
by rhn_mk1 7y ago
> Things don't go immediately from unethical to a moral imperative, there is a substantial gap that needs to be crossed.
I would accept that in the general case, but since you let your utilitarian views slip, I have to ask: what's the difference?
When something is immoral, it means it has a negative utility, and therefore it should be avoided. When something is moral, it has a positive utility, and therefore it's something that should be strived for, barring any other activity with greater utility. In my eyes, that makes every moral thing a utilitarian's moral imperative, with the only gap being things that have no moral value.
How does my view differ from yours?
- jonfw 7y ago> barring any other activity with greater utility I can think of a number of activities that would provide greater utility than attemting to impregnate as many women as possible. I'm not a pure utilitarian and I see a distinction between the concepts of morality and utility. Mostly because I'm not capable of gauging utility all the time, so I can fall back on broader moral principles.
- rhn_mk1 7y agoThank you for the answer. It seems we have the same view, but we speak about it differently: while an action may be moral or not, being a prerogative only matters in practice if it can be assessed. The difference is that I don't mind calling even the smallest, least important actions, which have the least chance to be the best thing to do at the moment, prerogatives.