BlueTangerine
Well-Known Member
Of course it is, the very nature of the intensity of discussion as to whether it is right/moral/correct/inevitable is that this is what one would resort to.
I would without question, but that's me.
I think in an objective sense it is right to. It's rational to do so, in my opinion. Under certain circumstances like the one I proposed. I am totally with Harris and his 'welfare of sentient creatures' moral view. For me it doesn't create a paradox when the harm to 1 person can prevent harm and death to more people. It's just maths. It's the world as it is, an unfortunate necessary.
It really is pretty straight forward. The idea is to minimize suffering. If 100 people are going to blown up in fire and the guy who has planted the bomb is sat in a chair, you try your best to avoid the bomb going off.. if it means 100 die horribly/painfully and/or one man goes through some terrible hurt with the chance of saving all that horror.. I can't understand why it is not of interest to do the torturing.. (again I wouldn't want to do it, and it is a wild scenario, but it doesn't make it less right)