Trollies
I just completed my first paper for my Contemporary Moral Issues class and I was struck with the sinking suspicion that all of my papers will be very similar in nature. I wonder how many times I can explain to the professor that "should" is not a word with any value. I think I'll copy and paste the following excerpt onto all my papers and see how long it takes him to call me on it.
"I, as stated above, do not think there is any way that the conductor “should” act. In fact, I don’t believe that “should” is a concept with any legitimacy to it. “Should” is a mandate, or prescribed way of acting, and the prescription has to come from some place. The question then is where is this place it comes from that gives it legitimacy. People wish other people to act in certain ways, and through direct force can make them, but as there is no reason for assuming one person’s, or group of people’s, wishes take precedence over another’s, there is no reason for the dissenting individual to believe they should act in that way. Many believe this mandate must come from a god to give it it’s legitimacy, but even a god’s prescribed behavior doesn’t seem to be a good enough reason to act in a certain way. Isn’t any ethical theory invented by a god just as arbitrary as another person’s? Surely it is much more enforceable, but the inherent “should” still seems to be missing. The only legitimate way to use the term is by taking certain premises as givens that don’t necessarily seem to warrant that distinction. If one claims that what is best for society is what we should do, than one must accept that the society being referred to is desirable, a dubious claim at best. "
"I, as stated above, do not think there is any way that the conductor “should” act. In fact, I don’t believe that “should” is a concept with any legitimacy to it. “Should” is a mandate, or prescribed way of acting, and the prescription has to come from some place. The question then is where is this place it comes from that gives it legitimacy. People wish other people to act in certain ways, and through direct force can make them, but as there is no reason for assuming one person’s, or group of people’s, wishes take precedence over another’s, there is no reason for the dissenting individual to believe they should act in that way. Many believe this mandate must come from a god to give it it’s legitimacy, but even a god’s prescribed behavior doesn’t seem to be a good enough reason to act in a certain way. Isn’t any ethical theory invented by a god just as arbitrary as another person’s? Surely it is much more enforceable, but the inherent “should” still seems to be missing. The only legitimate way to use the term is by taking certain premises as givens that don’t necessarily seem to warrant that distinction. If one claims that what is best for society is what we should do, than one must accept that the society being referred to is desirable, a dubious claim at best. "