(August 2, 2017 at 8:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(August 2, 2017 at 8:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Why? If suffering is the most important metric for mores, and if you can kill without causing suffering, then on what basis is the killing immoral? If you say "by its very nature, it becomes the cause of immense suffering," then that is clearly not moral given the axiom that causing suffering is immoral-- so that wouldn't be allowed. If, and only if, you could kill without causing much suffering, then would it be okay, or is there another metric (we know there is-- it's abstract ideas about the value of memories and so on).
You didn't -give- an example of killing without suffering. You gave an example where a racist nationalist society found it moral to euthanize browns...and we've seen how that ends. Spoiler alert: a whole lot of suffering.
That's some seriously low rent shit Benny, and I think you can do better.
Indeed benny is denying empirical evidence of what such a society leads to.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Inuit Proverb
