Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Drive

Expand Messages
  • Tom
    ... When assessing the greater evil, the following contrived situation comes to mind. A man is walking along a bridge when he sees that a train carrying
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 29, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      ><< Is that greastest pleasure for the greatest number a worthy goal? >>
      >
      > >This requires very lengthy discussion, maybe half of a school semester,
      > >but
      > >I'll say this: Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist moral theory,
      > >holds that
      > >it is the consequences or ends of our actions that determine whether
      > >particular means to them are justified. This leads to conclusions that
      > >are
      > >contrary to "commonsense morality." For example: Wouldn't it justify
      > >punishing an innocent person, a "scapegoat," in order to prevent a
      > >great evil
      > >or promote a great good?

      > Punshing an innocent IS a great evil, and wouldn't jusify preventing
      > another great evil.

      When assessing the greater evil, the following contrived situation comes to
      mind.

      A man is walking along a bridge when he sees that a train carrying hundreds
      of passengers is almost certainly to go plumetting several hundred feet into
      a canyon below. Seeing this, he realises that he can alert the driver by
      rushing towards a nearby emergency button. Unfortunately, the button is
      only accessible by his young daughter as he is far too big to reach it
      through the tunnel in which it resides. The button, however, is situated in
      a location that will go plumetting into the canyon along with the train. He
      can choose one of two options :-

      1) Coerce his young daughter into the "game" of pushing the button even
      though he knows it will result in her certain death. The train passengers
      will most likley survive.

      2) Watch the train go plumetting into the canyon, killing hundreds. His
      daughter survives.

      If he chose (1) then he would be following the "Wouldn't it justify
      punishing an innocent person, a "scapegoat," in order to prevent a great
      evil or promote a great good?" idea. If he chose (2) then would that be a
      greater evil?

      Surely one for the existentialist deciding upon moral decision making? I'm
      damned if I can take a moral high ground! Utilitarianism would point
      towards option 1. What would the individual existentialists on this list
      choose? Maybe the nature of your philosophy dictates that it is too
      contrived to have meaning to you?

      Tom
    • Mario
      ... The purpose I agree to a certain extent that most people don t even seem to think about their existence in a beginning and end type fashion. They seem
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        ..."The purpose" I agree to a certain extent that most people don't
        even seem to think about their existence in a "beginning and end"
        type fashion. They seem to "live", period!

        Mario

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Yana Youhana"
        <yana_youhana@... wrote:
        >
        > The "Drive" exist from birth in all of us just like the
        > "cancer", it only needs a switch to turn it on or off.
        > In some cases, drugs are strong force to activate or
        > deactivate that drive/desire. It is the same as the
        > old "chichen or egg" question, which one exist first,
        > the drive or the desire to have that drive to go on!
        > I look around me in the daily life of mine, people that
        > rush to get to work and rush to go home, I look in to
        > those faces and most of the time I do NOT see the desire
        > but there is a drive and that is the insinct for survival,
        > to LIVE because one must! 90% of the people just live because
        > of that birth given drive to live BUT ONLY 10% are ALIVE!
        >
        > -
        > yana
        >
        >
        > >From: Frodo742@...
        > >Reply-To: existlist@onelist.com
        > >To: existlist@onelist.com
        > >Subject: Re: [existlist] Drive
        > >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:24:56 EDT
        > >
        > >From: Frodo742@...
        > >
        > >In a message dated 7/28/99 10:13:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        > >Jarod_Rollins@... writes:
        > >
        > ><< Its doubtless that this motavation exists but to what
        > > ends? >>
        > >
        > >I believe that no matter how much a thinking sentient being
        analyzes,
        > >re-analyzes, and over-analyzes his purpose or lack of purpose in
        the world,
        > >his intellect cannot deter fundamental human drives/ambitions.
        For
        > >instance,
        > >all must eat to survive. However, because human beings are human
        beings,
        > >they
        > >do not only wish to eat, they wish to eat well. And so it goes
        with other
        > >fundamental human drives: that of satisfying one's sexual desires
        often
        > >leads
        > >one, intellectually, to seek and find the concept of "love" for
        his or
        > >herself. Thus the intellect, spurred by fundamental, non-
        intellectual
        > >drives,
        > >furthers these drives into this Motivation that you speak of in
        your post.
        > >
        > ><< Is that greastest pleasure for the greatest number a worthy
        goal? >>
        > >
        > >This requires very lengthy discussion, maybe half of a school
        semester, but
        > >I'll say this: Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist moral
        theory, holds
        > >that
        > >it is the consequences or ends of our actions that determine
        whether
        > >particular means to them are justified. This leads to conclusions
        that are
        > >contrary to "commonsense morality." For example: Wouldn't it
        justify
        > >punishing an innocent person, a "scapegoat," in order to prevent
        a great
        > >evil
        > >or promote a great good? Also...on further criticism, the
        application of
        > >the
        > >classic hedonistic utilitarian philosophy is very difficult on a
        personal,
        > >and even more so on a societal level. The "utilitarian calculus,"
        or
        > >whatever
        > >you want to term it, is an altogether way, way too subjective
        matter, as in
        > >determining what deserves how many utiles, etc. It just doesn't
        work, and
        > >if
        > >anyone on this list would like to go into a little further
        discussion on
        > >modern manifestations of the principle of utility, like cost-
        benefit
        > >analysis, let me know!
        > >-Steve
        > >
        > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------
        ------
        > >
        > >Start a new ONElist list & you can WIN great prizes!
        > >For details on ONElist's NEW FRIENDS & FAMILY program, go to
        > >http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html
        > >
        > >------------------------------------------------------------------
        ------
        > >From The Exist List...
        > >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.