Today in class, we discussed Aristotle's take on the thought experiment involving the killing (or not) of one person, to prevent the subsequent murder of ten people. I was very satisfied with the conclusions we reached in class. I do think that Aristotle would not even begin to analyze a scenario like that, and the question would have no relevance to his theory either.
I did however, think that the way in which Aristotle examines the individual versus the community (polis) and the relevance and effect they have on one another, compared to many loci of cultures in eastern nations, where the community, external factors, or state all take priority over the individual, whether the question is level of importance, or simply the causal factors from community to individual, rather than individual to community. Thoughts?
One of the great flaws in the thinking of men like Aristotle who look toward the greater good of the community over the rights of the individual is that over time this mentally can result in amoral decisions. Such as the sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of the many.
ReplyDeleteIn many cases a person can choose to risk there own life for the sake of others. But there are plenty of cases where individuals are used as scapegoats or cast out by companies because they do not meet some minor and often previously overlooked condition.
If people strictly look towards the benefit of the many through the sacrifice of the few, then the community may kill people because it expedient rather than necessary. Each case must be judged on the basis of that case. Previous precedents due set certain standards but we should not blindly or without looking for alternatives use one persons life for the good of many others.
I am curious, Robert. What makes you say that the sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of the many is an amoral decision? If by amoral you mean immoral (it is important to be clear and distinct about these terms), then I suppose that may be a subjective moral preference. But I do not think it is amoral in any sense. In fact, I find it to be profoundly moral, and those who decide to sacrifice the individual for the benefit of the many do so after much moral consideration. Amoral, at least in my understanding of the term, connotes something like a a free-market economy. It doesn't make any moral judgments...ever. Its objective is profit, and if that results in a moral good, fine. And if it results in a moral wrong, also fine. So, to reiterate my opening question, in what way is it amoral (non-moral) to sacrifice the individual for the benefit of the many?
DeleteTh problem of sacrificing a person for the sake of the collective is not really a weakness of Aristotle's approach; it is, however, a potential problem with Mill's, as we shall see.
Delete