I guess I was mistaken about what "aggression" means. I think you're right, the NAP would argue that you shouldn't pull that lever. So yes, it's not a perfect concept. But in fairness, there are scenarios where utilitarianism and Kantianism also allow for things that are obviously immoral:
- If 100 people get enough pleasure from throwing a baby into a volcano that it supercedes the pain & suffering caused to the baby, and nobody else ever knows about it, utilitarianism says that's ok.
- If you live in Nazi Germany and you're hiding Jews in your attic, Kantianism says it's immoral to lie to the SS troops when they knock on your door asking about Jews in the house.
So I guess they're all flawed in one way or another. But other than examples like these, I think they're useful tools and I've not often found them to be blatantly wrong like this.
I guess I was mistaken about what "aggression" means. I think you're right, the NAP would argue that you shouldn't pull that lever. So yes, it's not a perfect concept. But in fairness, there are scenarios where utilitarianism and Kantianism also allow for things that are obviously immoral:
- If 100 people get enough pleasure from throwing a baby into a volcano that it supercedes the pain & suffering caused to the baby, and nobody else ever knows about it, utilitarianism says that's ok.
- If you live in Nazi Germany and you're hiding Jews in your attic, Kantianism says it's immoral to lie to the SS troops when they knock on your door asking about Jews in the house.
So I guess they're all flawed in one way or another. But other than examples like these, I think they're useful tools and I've not often found them to be blatantly wrong like this.
I don't advocate any morality that relies on a strict set of declarations. Morality is far to complex a subject.
The problem with morality is that ultimately, given any situation there is always a best decision/s, the problem is one of information. Moral decisions are always made with a limited amount of information. This is the problem.
As time rolls on new information is uncovered that could change our feelings about the morality of certain actions. Instead of trying to justify actions taken in light of strict moral precepts, why not create a system that can adapt to new information?
Ultimately, when taking all of humanity into account I'm not certain there is morality that would cover every situation. Morality works best at the societal level where people share common values, but in an increasingly global world, it becomes a lot more difficult to convince people to endure suffering to prevent a greater suffering outside your own society.
First thing we need to decide is what we value? In the simplest terms I think most people would agree that maximization of happiness health and well-being are things we value most, and pain, fear, sickness and suffering are things we try to avoid most.
So how to come up with a moral system that achieves that....and there-in lies the rub...All we have to do is look back into our past and realize that we've made some pretty bad decisions as individuals and societies when it comes to ethical and moral behavior.
It has long been known that no catalog of facts about the world, no matter how complete, can ever by itself furnish us with a moral system. There must also be some decision made of what to value which can never be derived from mere knowledge of those facts. But while it is true that moral directives cannot be derived from the bare facts of the external world, they are still based on those facts, and therein lies the key. Any ethical directive based on a false factual statement is wrong. In other words, descriptive statements cannot confirm prescriptive statements, but can disprove them. Ethical directives based on claims of fact that are not known to be false, but that lack sufficient evidentiary support, should be held in abeyance until that claim is either decisively confirmed or decisively refuted.
The best moral system can adapt to new information and accepts from the beginning that it might be mistaken and look to solve problems in light of new information and falsifiable evidence to the claims that it makes.
