Todd asked: "But in all honesty, why do we consider these legitimate questions towards morality to be so wild and radical? And in the same right, why can we not apply ethics to them? I'd be curious to see other thoughts."
I agree wholeheartedly. I think, even if we could legitimately label the situations as wild and radical, they are relevant. An appropriate code of ethics should apply even in these circumstances, and an inability to do so is a failure of the ethic. These scenarios are helpful, as they are efficient at illuminating weaknesses within codes of ethics.
Why do we consider them wild and radical? I think this claim is often made by those who adhere to a code of ethics that cannot answer these questions. Otherwise, there are legitimate reasons to call them wild, but this does not render illegitimate the applicability of these hypothetical situations.
Is it a failing of an ethic to be unable to answer such questions as the lifeboat scenario?
No comments:
Post a Comment