Your faux ethical dilemma regarding the organ transplant can only exist in a vaccum (Though you may be right that people do ENGAGE IN ethical emotivism). As I see it, your proposition isn't a singular linear line of reasoning. How you're thinking about it seems to be this: If you can -1 to +5 should you do that. But really your proposition is the intersection of several constituent elements regarding personal property rights (Does the person own their organs), consent (Is it ethical to take something from someone else without consent), authority (Is it ethical for a "We" to have authority over an individual). So, if yes (you ought to take the organs) do you have to reconcile with the constituent elements of the proposition? If it's ethical for "a group to take the organs from 1 to save 5 people" is it, then, also ethical for "a group to take the property of an individual without their consent" (in a broader sense)? Or are you just making a 1 time exception for this guy? Or is whether or not it's ethical contingent on what you're taking and whether or not you're saving lives? You see the distinction I'm trying to make, right? Maybe I'm not understanding it properly.
Hym "To me it just sounds like a repackaging of the trolley problem. And I don't see how it's incompatible with utilitarianism because if you aim to maximize pleasure then it's either a total of 1 unit of pleasure (1 person who continues to live so they can experience pleasure) or 5 units... Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying... I guess the distinction between the trolly problem and your thing IS the intersection of constituent elements. Rather than just deciding whether or not to switch the tracks you're deliberately putting a guy ON THE TRACK. So it's a little more direct I guess... You're slightly more culpable in the outcome... That's a good one though. That aside, I think ethical emotivism is something people engage in rather than the default. I do still think you can create a mathematical ethical scale. Like my thing! I kill a kid (-2), you kill me (-1), I get my stuff back (+1). That's all I got for now. Bring it back up later maybe I'll come up with something else. Hopefully that isn't too incoherent to understand."
by Hym Iam March 15, 2024
A person not only encourages others to respect their own bodies and to love themselves by sharing their stories or using their platforms, but also consciously models for ethical fashion brands that help people, the environment, and animals.
My mission as an ethical model is to support the worldwide ethical fashion movement and women empowerment.
by Kiko H June 27, 2019
A person who not only encourages others to respect their own bodies and to love themselves by sharing their stories or using their platforms, but also consciously models for ethical fashion brands that help people, the environment, and animals.
My mission as an ethical model is to support the worldwide ethical fashion movement and women empowerment.
by Kiko H June 27, 2019
An ‘Ethical Model’ is someone with ethical beliefs and values and who wishes to make the world a better place through their work, activism, social media, and other platforms.
- We represent all kinds of ethical models: shapes, sizes, colors, ages, disabilities.
- Ethical models are the voices for positive change.
- Ethical models are the voices for positive change.
by Kiko H December 08, 2020
by Potato_99 December 26, 2021
something that makes no sense. it may seem simple but it's not if you do something good, see that fruit or vegetable in your house you bought to be healthy it may seem like a simple choice but it was farmed by children or underpaid members of communist countries or slaves.
A: Ethics suck
B: why?
A: ex: a priest gets told a horrible secret but can't tell the police because they made an oath, but it seems wrong not to tell
B: why?
A: ex: a priest gets told a horrible secret but can't tell the police because they made an oath, but it seems wrong not to tell
by sukmaidik March 06, 2023