Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre
I can say that because I did do the calculation. Robbing the homeless person of that choice (or illusion of choice for those that get anal about it) causes suffering because they could be happier enduring their suffering even if death would cause less suffering than living. Ultimately you're not causing their suffering by letting them live either. They are causing their own suffering by letting themselves live. Or something else is causing their suffering which of course is a better alternative to investigate over killing the homeless guy but of course that gets ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.
I've literally explained how it would be harmful 3 times now. How it does actually fit in suffering vs. happiness. You're just ignoring it or dismissing it because it doesn't fit your narrative.
|
maybe you're just misunderstanding the actual scenario. It's literally built into the scenario that in this case we somehow know for a fact that with this man, more suffering will be alleviated than caused by his death.
So responding "maybe it won't" is just rejecting the scenario entirely, not answering it.
You did prove my point that there's more to it than just a calculation on suffering by bringing up the problem that you are infringing on his right to choose whether to live or die. This is something that tends to bother us regardless of any suffering vs happiness calculation.
As I mentioned, if the man were to contemplate suicide, the same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply. Yet we wouldn't see that as wrong because it's his choice. So there is another element at play beyond that calculation.