----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 6:04 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:59:48 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > I think that, at a minimum, morality requires the existance of > > Truths that exist apart from humans...but that we can come to > > understand. We agree that one cannot emperically derive morality. > > <sarcasm> > What, it's not just a cost/benefit analysis? > </sarcasm> > Forgive me if that seems offensive -- it's not meant to be. I've been trying > to figure out how to respond to the confusion I've observed here between > utilitarian and moral arguments. That's the best I've got so far. Well, in order to do a cost/benefit analysis you have to have a template. I proposed one three times, without response. My template was: measure the action I would prefer for the people in Iraq by picturing my children being exchanged with 3 random civilians there and then being required to live in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Which action would I consider better for my family? But, if that template is reasonable, then we can use all of our skills to answer that question. If we decide that, with respect to the Iraqis, the criterion is do no net harm and do net good if possible, then we can use a number of analytical techniques. Indeed, I feel we are called to use all of our talents when we make decisions. I know some folks who believe that morality is a matter of feeling empathy. You waxed long and poetically in your post about how you felt the pain of people dying. Do you think having such feelings is what morality is about....that only those people who feel a emotion at a certain time are acting morally? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
