From the perspective of hedonism, unpleasant experiences are bad, pleasant experiences good. Each of us has some experience that he thinks is unpleasant and one he thinks is pleasant. From this whole thing we could get to what is unpleasant and what is pleasant to each other, and the rest to prohibit within the framework of freedom from. From this you could deduce the law. With the fact that it is a hedonism. Utilitarianism could connect but remains a problem with the sacrifice of the child's life. Do you have any idea how to remove it, or how to come to the morality of a generally acceptable relativism and freedom from? Maybe some referendum ?
Instead of adding utilitarianism into the mix, I'd replace it with a modified deontology that says that any acceptable action must meet two conditions. First, the action needs to be universalizable, so that everyone did your action, everyone else would find it pleasant. Second, the action needs to follow the principle of humanity, treating other persons as ends in themselves rather than simply as means to some end.
But he can not stand the categorical imperative. I know that by twisting my cigarettes I am looking for a compromise between people, in what is pleasing to them, or good and free from what is unpleasant, freedom from being a collection of distress that one man can make to another.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity