(March 1, 2018 at 9:10 pm)stretch3172 Wrote: "A good person is one that attempts to increase human well being through their own actions."
What about "increasing human well-being" makes it "good"? This is a real question because if there is no real, objective moral standard, then that's an entirely unfounded presupposition on which a great deal of your view of ethics rests.
Perhaps the answer (or part of it) is in the question itself ("increasing human well-being"). I could ask you something similar: What about "God adhering to some moral standard" makes the moral standard "good" (or "real" and "objective")?
Quote:"it is also clear that murdering someone does NOT promote human well being."
There are a million possible hypothetical scenarios in which murder could indeed promote human well being, especially when you consider well-being both qualitatively and quantitatively. While you are correct that such cases can be very rare, the fundamental issue remains. For instance, if you could somehow save a whole room full of dying patients with the organs of one innocent, healthy patient, should you? If not, why? It seems that your ethical philosophy is ultimately subjective because the very concept of "well being" is subjective. There is no real underlying reason to say that anything is right or wrong except the ones we invent for ourselves.
I personally wouldn't, basically because it doesn't feel right for me to intentionally kill a healthy human being (though it is a dilemma, and me not killing the healthy patient would mean letting a whole room of patients die when I could've saved them). Anyhow, how would you solve such a dilemma given your view? Does the standard God adhere to provide a clear solution to this dilemma? And is the solution clearly given to you?
