RE: Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds
May 10, 2021 at 7:29 pm
(This post was last modified: May 10, 2021 at 7:40 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I'd say that, even when we're discussing those things which we deem necessity - or things which may be medical necessity - it's still the case that surgeons concern themselves with the harm they might do. They're careful, we hope - and have made arrangements for anesthetics.
The anesthetics may not be medically necessary, interestingly enough.....but we still tend to think they should be present if they're available and would help. We might even see this a a positive commitment to do something, rather than a negative axiom to avoid another thing. Harm avoidance is generally straightforward - or at lest can be. Responsibilities to help, maybe not so much. In the general we might agree with the notion but it's hard to build consensus over what, exactly, we have to help with or who we have to help. Children, for example - present and future. All of them, with everything? Just mine, just with a few things? Maybe we have moral responsibilities to children - but they don't include preventing abortions or environmental apocalypse.
If that were the case, and assuming people are or can be rational agents and they've been provided with and understood some argument to that effect which leads them to conclude as much - I don't think we'd stop feeling as though we did. We'd find another way to communicate it. Sometimes, these declarative statements seem to be just that. This thing is true, and anywhere it isn't true I will make it true. Non-negotiables.
The anesthetics may not be medically necessary, interestingly enough.....but we still tend to think they should be present if they're available and would help. We might even see this a a positive commitment to do something, rather than a negative axiom to avoid another thing. Harm avoidance is generally straightforward - or at lest can be. Responsibilities to help, maybe not so much. In the general we might agree with the notion but it's hard to build consensus over what, exactly, we have to help with or who we have to help. Children, for example - present and future. All of them, with everything? Just mine, just with a few things? Maybe we have moral responsibilities to children - but they don't include preventing abortions or environmental apocalypse.
If that were the case, and assuming people are or can be rational agents and they've been provided with and understood some argument to that effect which leads them to conclude as much - I don't think we'd stop feeling as though we did. We'd find another way to communicate it. Sometimes, these declarative statements seem to be just that. This thing is true, and anywhere it isn't true I will make it true. Non-negotiables.
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!
