0 posts and 0 image replies omitted. Click to view.
But, perhaps, to be true philosophers, we mortals should not be conscious of so living or so striving. So soon as I hear that such or such a man gives himself out for a philosopher, I conclude that, like the dyspeptic old woman, he must have "broken his digester."
54 posts and 0 image replies omitted. Click to view.
So the Trolley question got me wondering; in every thread they pose the question, some anons take a position, and then what usually happens is other anons try to either find flaws in this thinking either in general terms or applying it to other situations. But my question is, why must we hold absolutely rigid ethical positions? Why can I not say, in this instance it makes sense for me to approach the issue from a utilitarian perspective, and then when later a different issue presents itself, decide that an egoist approach would be better suited. I understand that the factors which enable us to determine what we think would be a 'better suited' ethical position for the scenario do themselves constitute in a sense some innate core ethical tenets, but why is the idea that our line of thinking in the present scenario must be applicable to others an absolutely necessary one?