SeahorseTreble@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world · 2 years agoIf one innocent person is tortured so that everyone else can live and the world doesn't end, is that simultaneously unfair but also morally preferable over complete destruction of everything?message-squaremessage-square102linkfedilinkarrow-up194
arrow-up194message-squareIf one innocent person is tortured so that everyone else can live and the world doesn't end, is that simultaneously unfair but also morally preferable over complete destruction of everything?SeahorseTreble@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world · 2 years agomessage-square102linkfedilink
minus-squaregapbetweenus@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up3·2 years agoSo using evolution to reason moral questions is not the best way to go.
minus-squaregapbetweenus@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 years agoI hope you just pretend that you don’t know what social Darwinism is and how applying it worked out in the end.
minus-squaregapbetweenus@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 years agoSocial Darwinism is what you get by applying basic understanding of evolution to moral questions - exactly what you have been doing. It’s really not that complicated. As a moral construct it only leads to suffering since it lacks any empathy.
So using evolution to reason moral questions is not the best way to go.
Removed by mod
I hope you just pretend that you don’t know what social Darwinism is and how applying it worked out in the end.
Removed by mod
Social Darwinism is what you get by applying basic understanding of evolution to moral questions - exactly what you have been doing. It’s really not that complicated. As a moral construct it only leads to suffering since it lacks any empathy.