@IQ170 wrote:
Have you ever contemplated an abstract problem? Apart from the specifics? Like, how to solve a quadratic equation?
What is “vague” about this dilemma? All the available options cause harm to others, some cause more harm, others less harm. What is your method to decide how to act? To choose less harm, or to choose greater harm? Or toss a coin and let the random outcome decide your choice? There is nothing “vague” about this dilemma.
As I already said that I would accept if you admitted that your ethical system is unable to present a generic solution, it could only present a solution for a specific case. I would accept it, as an admission of the inefficiency of our ethical system.
The ethical principle I use is simple: “choose the lesser harm”. The actual evaluation of which is the “lesser” harm may be problematic, and we may disagree on it, but the principle is the same. But you don’t have such a general principle.
Or maybe you do? If you are convinced that your deity would order you to rape, torture and maim the newborn children, kill all the boys, but keep the virgins for your sexual gratification, then THAT would be the ethical thing to do. Or would it?
Ethics is the third branch of philosophy, after metaphysics and epistemology. It deals with the question of “ought”-s. But I did not ask for a specific solution for every possible dilemma, I was looking for an general method for certain “classes” of dilemmas. You say that you cannot provide one. That is fine.
I wonder if you could provide a generic solution for another type of dilemma, where one of the options is to be nice, kind and loving, and the other option is to be cruel and hateful. Or do you need a specific example for that, too?
If you could provide evidence for that undefined “spiritual” harm, I would be glad to contemplate it.
