Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
So it is a psychological concept (I have read it as a moral theory concept in this thread). In that case it is obvious a moral theory cannot give any firm conclusion about what all "normal" people will think. Also moral theory cannot be based on the intuition people have since you cannot go from is to ought.
|
No it is not a psychological concept. I merely used the psychological aspect as a defining quality of a normal human being. What I was trying to say is I don't think it is rational or constructive to argue that the ravings of a mad person for example should be considered a true moral code. If we were to accept such ravings as a true moral code(even one we didn't agree with) then anything at all could be considered a moral code and there would be no debate possible as there would be no agreed upon constucts to enable debate. Anyone could come in and say "nope sorry you are all wrong, I think the only moral thing to do with regards to eating is that everyone must eat only human flesh and drink only human blood" for example.
Maths, for example, has a set of rules and definitions that all mathematicians agree upon before they debate mathematical things. If someone came in and said "well I think 2+2=8" I don't think any mathematician would argue that they must consider this as possibly valid and take that viewpoint into consideration when debating mathematics. Some things are simply not worth taking into consideration because they add nothing to the debate, and in many cases detract from the debate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tompe
In you example there could have been the case that all that was killed was going to cause a lot of suffering and that the optimal things to happen was what happened. Of course this is not very probable but a consequence ethics theory (utilitarian theory) allows for this possibility.
|
Well it is my understanding, from what you and Patricia have said, that in utilitarian theory one must consider the consequences of the action to determine its wrongness or othewise.
Now how is one to determine the future? How is one to determine that the 35 people killed in Port Arthur were going to go on into the future and cause alot of suffering?
Now, I would argue there is no way to do such a thing and therefore there is no way to determine that the action is good because of such a consequence.
So doesn't that invalidate the idea that this action of killing 35 people could have been good? If it being categorised as being good relies upon a determination of what the future would have been had these 35 people not been killed?
Cheers,
PKFFW