My question might be worded funny, but I don't know where to start. I'm looking for help. I understand each of the following situations should be approached individually, but I am more concerned about how we find these differences of our "intuition's line" so I can better approach these subjects and others that might be similair in the future.

It seems to me their is a tie between: abortion, veganism and the death penalty- in that most people have a intuition of a line of where it begins and stops being acceptable. The hypothetical abortion line starts when the sperm is in the egg for some people and 4-5 months for other people; The hypothetical veganism line is we might kill germs, ants and cockroaches but not kill cows; The hypothetical death penalty line might be shooting someone holding a gun vs never killing for any reason.... etc.

Can someone help me on how I can develop a tactic on how to access these situations? ..I tend to lean towards accepting a farther line of "kill points" because in my personal experience I think their could be worse.

  • You're not going to get a satisfactory answer. Here's an anecdote to complicate things even more. A good way of controlling excess goose populations is to throw most of their eggs into the river each Spring. When that was proposed as a solution near where I live, many people became outraged at this and successfully demanded that it not happen. Many of those same people and groups also fought for the right of women to have abortions. – Ray Butterworth Nov 8 at 15:06
  • @RayButterworth I think in that specific situation, it could be argued that a woman consents to an abortion while a goose does not consent to have its eggs destroyed. That said, it would be hypocritical for anyone who eats eggs or meat to object to the destruction of those eggs. – 79037662 Nov 8 at 16:13
  • If you are looking for a general rule derived from first principles it does not exist, different people have different moral sensibilities. In practice, this is resolved pragmatically by drawing lines that most people in a society can live with and writing them into the law. A more "theoretical" approach can be based on utilitarianism: analyze which set of lines (you feel) produces the "best" result on average and follow those. – Conifold Nov 8 at 18:51
  • thanks you guys, this has given me something to think about. cheers – Noah Nov 10 at 20:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.