There are consequences to the 'good' act, both short term and long term.
The 'good' act can be instinctive, humane would be the claim, yet as witnessed in animal behaviour (Elephants grieving) you do not have to be human to be humane.
Consequentialists hold that choices—acts and/or intentions—are to be morally assessed solely by the states of affairs they bring about.
However these affairs brought about have short term, the immigrant child given refuge, and long term other hard working people paying for the acts of others. The question being, why should your act with its immediate 'moral/compassionate' act supersede mine, ie I must pay for your act with my taxes,
Consequentialists. drawn by their moral imperative thus must specify initially the states of affairs that are intrinsically valuable—often called, collectively, “the Good.” They then are in a position to assert that whatever choices increase the Good, that is, bring about more of it, are the choices that it is morally right to make and to execute.
Yet the 'good' must undego epistemic rigour, what is it, how did it come about, what interested parties
or dominant classes undergirds the notion of the 'good'. For the good is not agent neutral, nor is its
sister, the 'moral' view.
Is the loaf of bread 'good' if the child is hungry? yes, but the loaf of bread is not agent neutral
its price is undergirded by economic political and social factors. Are these factors good and what are the long and short term consequences.
The 'good' act can be instinctive, humane would be the claim, yet as witnessed in animal behaviour (Elephants grieving) you do not have to be human to be humane.
Consequentialists hold that choices—acts and/or intentions—are to be morally assessed solely by the states of affairs they bring about.
However these affairs brought about have short term, the immigrant child given refuge, and long term other hard working people paying for the acts of others. The question being, why should your act with its immediate 'moral/compassionate' act supersede mine, ie I must pay for your act with my taxes,
Consequentialists. drawn by their moral imperative thus must specify initially the states of affairs that are intrinsically valuable—often called, collectively, “the Good.” They then are in a position to assert that whatever choices increase the Good, that is, bring about more of it, are the choices that it is morally right to make and to execute.
Yet the 'good' must undego epistemic rigour, what is it, how did it come about, what interested parties
or dominant classes undergirds the notion of the 'good'. For the good is not agent neutral, nor is its
sister, the 'moral' view.
Is the loaf of bread 'good' if the child is hungry? yes, but the loaf of bread is not agent neutral
its price is undergirded by economic political and social factors. Are these factors good and what are the long and short term consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment