Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
Most moral philosophies rely on three assumptions:
1. That the well-being of the individual is desirable.
2. That the well-being of the local group is desirable.
3. That the well-being of other groups is desirable.
The degree to which importance is placed on each is mostly what seperates the different philosophies. However, a moral system that ignores 2 and 3, and only considers 1 important is the very essence of selfishness. Logically speaking, such a system cannot be justified either.
|
You say that the aforementioned system is logically unjustified. Are you implying that the system is flawed because the importance of 2 and 3 follow from placing the importance of 1?
Offhand, it strikes me that the wellbeing of human groups may be important to AOs to the same degree that the wellbeing of plantlife is important to humans. The AOs need to maintain a food supply, certainly. But the guidelines for conduct that follow from 1, 2, and 3 are highly lenient, and how AOs act don't necessarily violate those guidelines. At worst their conduct may be sub-optimal. To sum up: I don't see that AOs would be immoral according to a system that follows from these assumptions.