[lit-ideas] Geary: It Ain't Necessarily So
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 10:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/9/2011 3:22:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx writes:
My primary interest in ethics or moral philosophy is in the conflict
between moral principles and necessity. Is it immoral to leave a newborn baby
out on a hill to die when there is not enough food to feed the family?
----
Part of the problem here is the Latinism, "necessitas". In shorter
Anglo-Saxon, "she needs him."
---- Some moralists have argued that there is necessity in _moral
principles_, so the conflict, for Geary is between one type of necessity and
the
other type of necessity.
It ain't morally necessarily so; but it is physically necessary so.
It ain't physically necessarily so; but it is morally necessary so.
It may be argued that moral necessity supervenes on physical necessity:
"Fly!"
the mother orders the child. Since a child doesn't have wings, she cannot
fly. So, "You ought to fly" tends to be a vacuous moral principle (hence
its non-existence) since, "ought implies PHYSICAL can", and so on.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Geary: It Ain't Necessarily So - Jlsperanza
