[Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas are mostly easy?

JKirkpatrick jkirk at spro.net
Sun Jun 13 15:19:31 MDT 2010


Luke, this is the clearest one you've posted so far. Great--keep
it going :)

Hello, I know it was a while ago since anyone mentioned
deontology or bribery but this is my two cents. I think it makes
sense to be a consequentialist about things that either way the
consequences will be bad. Consequentialism almost seems like
justice. Thinking about bribery thought - surely we do not want
to let ourselves be bribed just for some gain? So I think I am a
consequentialist unless in the dilemma one may choose something
positive. E.g. that you couldn't argue for the benefit of
upsetting one person to make two happy, only upsetting one before
upsetting two. Does that make sense: *it seems to fit with my
moral intuitions*?
Also on the other emails I wanted to make the rather pointless
observation that I think that there are less evil people [not
less evil] in the world than one may want and that because so
much of our morality is from things out of our control I would
say that there is more equality of goodness than may be expected.
Relevant to the value of different people's lives being
incomparable. OK sorry if this email is especially poor: please
correct me!

buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com

More information about the buddha-l mailing list