From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 12:06:24 MDT
Hal wrote:
> How can a prescription to trust our moral instincts deal with the fact
> that people disagree about these matters? In their press conference
>
(http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/ndrive/archive/ter/ter072803_wydendorga
n.rm)
> the Senators said "betting on terrorism is morally wrong". They said
> it was "offensive to almost everyone", "ridiculous and grotesque", a
> "sick game".
>
> Logic and reason have as some of their main benefits the ability to
> reconcile conflicting views. If people can agree on their premises,
> then ideally, using logic, they can come to agreement on their
> conclusions.
>
> But how can this work with emotions, with instincts? Suppose I don't
> share the senator's repugnance? Which of us is right, and which is
> wrong? What mechanism can we use to resolve these differences of
> opinion?
>
> I suppose, in practice, we would just say that majority rules. If
> most people share the moral repugnance of the Senators, then they are
> right. If instead people instinctively thought that the market's
> potential benefits were worthy enough, then the supporters of the
> futures market are right.
>
> I'm not that happy with a rule like this, that the majority is always
> right. But what else can we do?
### Use some form of consequentialist ethics to derive rules of conduct
independently of intuitions about the propriety of majority rule.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 09:13:40 MDT