Now I feel like repeating myself. According to “core morality” you are not free to destroy someones agency unless in defense, e.g. you are not free to make choices that are expected to cause someone’s death unless in defense if he violates this principle.
I don’t know how to reconcile your comments in this thread.
It seems to me that if someone is dying, and I choose to let them die, that’s a choice that’s expected to cause their death. So by your account, core morality says I’m not free to make that choice. Also by your account, core morality doesn’t have anything to say about whether I should keep someone from dying given the choice.
Does my confusion make sense? Can you help resolve it?
The test whether a choice causes something is to see whether if I did not exist or could not act (e.g. was unconscious), the thing would not occur.
In the given example, if I poison someone I cause his death, since if I could not act for whatever reason there would be no poison. But if someone is drowning without my doing and I just happen to come along and choose not to throw a life belt I would not be causing his death since he would drown anyway if I could not act.
OK. So what kinds of choices does “core morality” contribute to making decisions about?
Now I feel like repeating myself. According to “core morality” you are not free to destroy someones agency unless in defense, e.g. you are not free to make choices that are expected to cause someone’s death unless in defense if he violates this principle.
I don’t know how to reconcile your comments in this thread.
It seems to me that if someone is dying, and I choose to let them die, that’s a choice that’s expected to cause their death. So by your account, core morality says I’m not free to make that choice. Also by your account, core morality doesn’t have anything to say about whether I should keep someone from dying given the choice.
Does my confusion make sense?
Can you help resolve it?
The test whether a choice causes something is to see whether if I did not exist or could not act (e.g. was unconscious), the thing would not occur.
In the given example, if I poison someone I cause his death, since if I could not act for whatever reason there would be no poison. But if someone is drowning without my doing and I just happen to come along and choose not to throw a life belt I would not be causing his death since he would drown anyway if I could not act.
Ah, I see. OK, I understand you now. Thanks for clarifying.