@Vulcan
Thought you might enjoy the springboard, it seemed relevant. Since, in context here we may not discussing an inconsistency of a system, as your poll suggests, but a possible misapplication of an unsuitable system to a particular portion of any given hypothetical.
In the same vein, perhaps you -don't- prioritize them..or can't..at least not if you want a full and accurate picture of the moral field? Not if you want to make a fully informed moral appraisal (such as a declaration of moral desert).
So what do we do? Well, we don't let a doctor do that, but we do seek to more efficiently address the needs of those on the transplant list, and we consider him to be a well meaning but ultimately flawed moral agent. We don't take the organs back from whomever he has placed them into nor do we feel that they share shame in the act or that it;s a bad thing they;re alive and the other guy is dead. We seek recompense for the victim insomuch as we can but simultaneously we don;t make a big show of hanging the doctor from the yard arm like we might with some serial killing asshat who just played doctor. All of this is made possible by acknowledging multiple currents to any full moral appraisal and it;s difficult to see how our response could be improved by ignoring or diminishing the others in favor of any single one. None of them are competing for space, it's more an issue that..without them all, there is empty space.
Now, it may be that in some specific scenario one occupies more space than the other, but what general rule could be made about all scenarios when we're discussing unique situations with their own specifics? The comparative virtue of a person who commits genocide hardly seems relevant. Pol Pot's nephew describes a gentle man. Going the other way with it...the KKK pickets the Westboro Baptist church from time to time.
How would you prioritize, if you were looking to make suggestions?
Thought you might enjoy the springboard, it seemed relevant. Since, in context here we may not discussing an inconsistency of a system, as your poll suggests, but a possible misapplication of an unsuitable system to a particular portion of any given hypothetical.
In the same vein, perhaps you -don't- prioritize them..or can't..at least not if you want a full and accurate picture of the moral field? Not if you want to make a fully informed moral appraisal (such as a declaration of moral desert).
So what do we do? Well, we don't let a doctor do that, but we do seek to more efficiently address the needs of those on the transplant list, and we consider him to be a well meaning but ultimately flawed moral agent. We don't take the organs back from whomever he has placed them into nor do we feel that they share shame in the act or that it;s a bad thing they;re alive and the other guy is dead. We seek recompense for the victim insomuch as we can but simultaneously we don;t make a big show of hanging the doctor from the yard arm like we might with some serial killing asshat who just played doctor. All of this is made possible by acknowledging multiple currents to any full moral appraisal and it;s difficult to see how our response could be improved by ignoring or diminishing the others in favor of any single one. None of them are competing for space, it's more an issue that..without them all, there is empty space.
Now, it may be that in some specific scenario one occupies more space than the other, but what general rule could be made about all scenarios when we're discussing unique situations with their own specifics? The comparative virtue of a person who commits genocide hardly seems relevant. Pol Pot's nephew describes a gentle man. Going the other way with it...the KKK pickets the Westboro Baptist church from time to time.
How would you prioritize, if you were looking to make suggestions?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
