Because isn't the most importing thing in life, life itself. I don't want to go too OT however in my mind the reason of life is living itself. Human nature is to insure our suvival and prosper. Being dead you can't do any of that.
Nope. Many many people throughout history have declared that life itself is not the most important thing. The philosophers and revolutionaries who created the United States of America did so out of a belief that being dead but free is better than being alive by someone else's leave.
Living being the most important thing is a very subjective evaluation of the situation. There are many other subjective metrics that could be brought to the situation. Often times decisions are made that do not maximize the number of people who will survive based on many other criteria, including quality of life.
Maximizing the number of people that survive is a subjective goal.
If you were in that situation, killing one of the other person you may not want to do however logically would be the best thing to do (abit like 127hours).
Depending on which subjective metric you use to apply your logic. If your only value in life is to not kill another human being, logic would dictate that you all die.
I would suggest fight to the death if I was in that situation (goes allong with the whole point of life and survival of the fittest. Either that or if someone vollunteered. Thats how I woud do it personally.
A volunteer changes everything. But even by the subjective value judgement that maximizing the number of people who survive is the most important, and even if you decide that the person who is most adept at killing other people should be the one to survive (big leap), a fight to the death would still be counterproductive to survival, as all who fight are very likely to be seriously wounded.
Just to reitterate killing one to save you and another isn't morally correct in my mind (you will allways have the guilt) however it is logically the right thing to do.
Only if you assume (incorrectly) that maximizing the number of people who survive is the obvious goal. For reasons listed above, that's not a safe assumption.
People have different logic
Nope. Logic exists independent of interpretation.
Is utilitarianism a fallacy? No, it is a value judgment. It presupposes that the greater happiness of the whole society is the ultimate aim mankind is pursuing.
For the vast majority of those who advocate utilitarianism, the justification suffers from the "ends justify the means" fallacy. And you are right, it is totally subjective.
It is an opinion. Just like how you presuppose that the justification (utilitarianism) for infringing on one's fundamental right needs to be objectively verifiable. It cannot be objectively discerned.
Well, we haven't really gotten into what happens if you do something that isn't objectively justifiable. But it is a fact that it is not justifiable.
Why then, do we have governments? Why can't we simply live in the stone age era where everyone is king of his own family's cave? Can it be explained? The social contract? Do you really believe in such fiction?
I'm not asking answers. There is no answer at all.
Yes, I know you suppose that there are no answers. This is by far one of the most common moral positions human beings in developed nations take - that morality does not exist. When pressed, there is no logical reason to take this position.
To answer your question, governments exist to protect human rights. Human rights exist because there is no objective basis for the phrase "might makes right". Governments* exist because of a lack of objective basis for force.
*legitimate governments anyway
Similar to what constitutes human rights. Why is the right to bear arms a constitutional right in the US (correct me if I'm wrong - or the right to form militia) but not in Europe?
...because you would have to use force to remove someone's weapons - and because each individual must necessarily be allowed the capacity to defend himself against the use of force. This all follows from the lack of an objective basis for force.
It is not defended in Europe because it is not understood in Europe.
Is the US superior to the whole of the European continent so therefore it gets to say what morality is?
Nope, the basis of human rights is not determined by an individual's opinions.
Again, no answer for this. I'm not asking for an answer. I hope to show that there is no answer.
Why would you
want to show this. Shouldn't you hope to show that there
is an answer? Would that not be better for all involved?
I hope you can appreciate (rather than accept) that the perception of morality and human rights are entirely personal in nature. Some rights are "self evident" because it is presumed that every sensible human being would agree with that notion.
Self-evidence is a cop-out. It means "we didn't want to do the dirty work to get here".
But in relation to the trolley example - as you can see already - the existence of contradictory opinions mean that it is not self-evident.
But that does not mean that the answers do not exist.
Or could one claim that he/she IS the reasonable person and thus gets to decide what is self-evident for others?
Nonsense.
I really find it annoying that some think that their national laws are better than, say, that of the whole of Europe. I have encountered such exchange students before and.....well.....
The laws in the US are not perfect... not by a long shot... not by a VEEERY long shot. But some of them are better than the whole of Europe. (Europe gets some right that we don't too) The US generally understands the concept of human rights better than Europe. The UN bill of rights is an international joke of epic proportions, and it greatly undermines the credibility of any nation that subscribes to it.
