im pretty sure your post was too long and smelt like shit. i claim that maximising hapiness isnt always the best thing to do morally because of the example given (lets use my second simpler argument with buttons and what not). if maximising happiness is what we should do, then we should kill the hippie (I claim). we shouldnt kill the hippie (i think your post was saying I have to back this point up(point X)). Therefore we shouldnt always maximise happyness.
If I am right that you think i should back up point X then fine, but you could have said that in like one paragraph. a moral rule such as "the maximising happiness one of utilitarianism" should be synonomous with some kind of common sence view of morality. my example attempts to show this is not the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment