I agree, but as a purely terminological disagreement, it also doesn't really matter in the slightest, as long as people are clear about how *they're* using the term...
I agree, but as a purely terminological disagreement, it also doesn't really matter in the slightest, as long as people are clear about how *they're* using the term...
Hey, has anybody ever presented this paradox that just came to me?
Terrorist will blow up 1,000 people unless you kill someone immorally. Killing 1 to save 1,000 would be moral, but then it wouldn't satisfy the terrorist. So you would be killing someone without saving anyone, which would be immoral. This would satisfy the terrorist and save the 1,000 people. But then your killing would be moral...
I agree, but as a purely terminological disagreement, it also doesn't really matter in the slightest, as long as people are clear about how *they're* using the term...
Hey, has anybody ever presented this paradox that just came to me?
Terrorist will blow up 1,000 people unless you kill someone immorally. Killing 1 to save 1,000 would be moral, but then it wouldn't satisfy the terrorist. So you would be killing someone without saving anyone, which would be immoral. This would satisfy the terrorist and save the 1,000 people. But then your killing would be moral...
That's fun! Some structurally similar paradoxes discussed here: https://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/02/this-desire-is-thwarted.html