Join Telegram Link for new update
John Leslie Nagel Wikipedia, Wiki, Outlaw
John Leslie Nagel Wikipedia, Wiki, Outlaw – John Leslie Professor Emeritus (1940-) teaches at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. He makes the case that we should not endorse the idea that life should go extinct in his article “Why not let life go extinct?”
John Leslie Nagel Wikipedia, Wiki, Outlaw
Some argue that the extinction of the human species will not be sad or regrettable because: 1) no one will feel sad anymore; or 2) existence is so miserable that it is better to go extinct. Since someone in a position of authority could decide that life isn’t worth living and trigger the nuclear button (or trigger another extinction scenario), Leslie argues that this dilemma has a dichotomy. branches in the real world.
“Why not let life become extinct?” by John Leslie.
Fortunately, most people don’t think this way, but if they do, there aren’t many intellectual arguments to convince them otherwise. Furthermore, since so many people lead miserable lives, it is simple to see how a solution would require the death of a significant number of people. Philosophers often make the point that we should improve the lives of the poorest among us.
But what if we let all life disappear? Some philosophers argue that even if life has value, we have no obligation to spread it and we have no obligation to save someone’s life if they are about to lose it. Such thinking is based on the idea that although we should try to avoid hurting others, we are not obligated to support them. The results of other ways of thinking can be compared.
If life is miserable enough now or in the future, a utilitarian might argue that it should go extinct. Others object that we are under no obligation to create future beings, happy or not, for the simple reason that they cannot be denied anything because they do not yet exist.
Leslie disagreed, arguing that the nature of the situation and its consequences should be considered when deciding whether to create it. The most important factor to consider when choosing whether or not to build a particular future is whether it’s good or not.
Latest news
Now he makes some apologies. First, improving the lives of the poorest is morally right, but not if doing so means wiping out the entire human race. Second, just as you are not obligated to feed others while your own family is starving, real individuals are not obligated to sacrifice everything for the hypothetical. Third, we are not required to have children due to overpopulation.
In addition, we cannot be sure that we have obligations to future generations because ethics are not clearly defined. Leslie speculates that there may be a “moral claim that it exists” because the universe has value despite the evil it contains. In other words, if anything has intrinsic value, it becomes moral for it to exist.
But how does the stipulation that something should exist come from a description of the nature of a thing? Leslie argues that it is not possible to use a description of the nature of a thing to infer that it should exist. Perhaps it would be better without life.
But if we both agree that the core of life is good, are we obligated to move on? Leslie replied “no.” Since other ethical factors can supersede that requirement, the inherent goodness of a thing simply suggests that it has some obligation to exist. For example, a moral person may believe that it is better to die than to live in a world full of suffering.
The end result of all this is that neither side has a convincing argument. Competent philosophers, who argue that the absence of life is better, are on a par with those who argue that life is better than death. However, think twice before associating with such people, advises Leslie.
Ultimately, we cannot prove with certainty why we should prevent the extinction of life because we can never go from asserting that something is—even happiness. happiness or pleasure—to assert that it should be.
In addition, it is unclear whether maximizing happiness is the right moral goal. Instead, perhaps we should work to end suffering, even if it means allowing life to perish. Philosophers generally do not support such an idea, but the fact that they do not imply that they are willing to endure the misery of some in exchange for the happiness of others.
Also, Read
- Nicole Bahls’ Wiki
- Ralf Herrmann RTL reporter Wikipedia
- Wikipedia Iris Sayram, Wiki
Categories: Biography
Source: vothisaucamau.edu.vn
