Describe the argument from disaster prevention, and explain why it is an objection to ethical absolutism. How might an absolutist reply to this argument? Do you find the argument convincing?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is The argument from disaster prevention is based on the idea that in certain extreme situations, it may be necessary to act unethically in order to prevent a greater disaster or harm from occurring. This argument is often used in discussions about ethical absolutism, which is the belief that certain actions are always right or wrong, regardless of the consequences.

Those who advocate for disaster prevention argue that ethical absolutism fails to account for the complexities of real-world situations, and that in some cases, it may be necessary to set aside ethical principles in order to prevent a greater harm. For example, in a hypothetical scenario where a terrorist has planted a bomb in a crowded city, it may be argued that torturing the terrorist to obtain information about the bomb's location is justified in order to prevent a catastrophic loss of life.

This argument poses a challenge to ethical absolutism because it suggests that there are situations in which the absolute prohibition against certain actions, such as torture, may need to be overridden in order to prevent a greater harm. This raises questions about the practicality and applicability of ethical absolutes in extreme situations.

An absolutist might reply to this argument by asserting that ethical principles are non-negotiable, and that the ends do not justify the means. They may argue that allowing exceptions to ethical principles undermines the very foundation of morality and opens the door to abuse and exploitation. An absolutist might also argue that there are alternative ways to address extreme situations without compromising ethical principles, such as finding creative solutions or seeking diplomatic resolutions.

Whether or not one finds this argument convincing ultimately depends on their ethical framework and perspective. Some may find the argument from disaster prevention compelling, as it highlights the complexities of moral decision-making in extreme situations. Others may find it troubling, as it challenges the idea of ethical absolutes and raises concerns about the potential for abuse and moral relativism. Ultimately, the argument from disaster prevention forces us to grapple with the difficult question of how to balance ethical principles with the practical realities of extreme situations.

Describe the Argument from Disaster Prevention, and Explain Why It