The most ethical and moral

If you qualify what you're doing with this statement... It makes it perfectly fine.

Child molester "I conduct child molestation in the most ethical and moral way possible! I do what I like to call a 'Knock' where I tap my weiner on their butthole BEFORE I molest them to let them know their about to be molested."

Serial Killer "You see, I murder women in the most ethical and moral way possible. More so than any other serial killer."

Slave owner "I'm the most ethical and moral slave owner this side of the Mississippi. Yeah I'm doing what I'm doing. But I'm doing it in the most ethical and moral way possible."

by Hym Iam February 28, 2024

Ethical Emotivism

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 14, 2024