4 ms·
It seems you might be arguing a that it's untenable to account for individual actions. While a precise measurement is certainly infeasible, there are numerous p
by nsagent 3y ago
It seems you might be arguing a that it's untenable to account for individual actions. While a precise measurement is certainly infeasible, there are numerous philosophical frameworks that look to aggregate morality on a scale that can be compared, e.g. Utilitarianism and Consequentialism.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoAs far as I am aware many people have tried to prove so under those 'philosophical frameworks', but they've never succeeded so far. If you know of one, can you link a proof?
- zanellato19 3y agoWhat do you even mean by proof here? I'll do it differently. A State is a collection of many people, and a lot of States do evil things. The dictatorships in the Middle East, for example, and there is another example I won't include, but you can guess. Do you not see those organizations (because States are organizations at the end of the day), as evil? If corporations in those countries help those regimes, do you think those corporations are still amoral?
- MichaelZuo 3y agoProof of an actual, bonafide, non self-contradicting, etc..., 'philosophical frameworks that look to aggregate morality on a scale that can be compared'?