(August 11, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Hammy Wrote:(August 11, 2017 at 11:25 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Consequencalism doenst's work without some kind of moral realism already in place.
Consequentalism is the moral realism.
The point is even if you're a deontologist or virtue ethicist or some combination thereof... ultimately those duties and/or virtues are only as good as the consequences they bring about.
(August 11, 2017 at 11:25 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: It is all well and good to say any given technology is morally neutral and that the proper use of something like gene editing needs ethical guidelines. So the bigger question is the often debated 'objective morality'. Personally, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It's like Wimpy saying that he will gladly pay for the hamburger he eats today. You want to charge forward with using the technology knowing full well that you haven't a clue about what or even why there should be limits.
You say I don't have a leg to stand on because you don't understand my legs.
So already you are trying to reference an absolute that you claim doesn't exist. What makes a consequence good or bad?
