Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'moral justification'.
Found 1 result
-
I've been stuck the last days with some questions, maybe you guys can help me out!I found really hard to understand if the risk of something morally wrong to happen does influence the morality of an action to prevent it, and if it does, how to defined what are their limits.For example... It is almost proved that alcohol creates a problem when it comes to driven something. So, should we enforce a law (even in a private case, after all something funded privately can be morally wrong as well) which prevent pilots from drinking?Of course we can claim that the pilot would suffer the consequences if he crashes by paying restitution (probably not him because he wouldn't likely survive an accident, but let's say the insurance that he had payed). But what about if the society (the market in a free world), wouldn't want to be expose to such a high risk?On the other hand, to enforce that we are kind of interfering with violence a pacific person that hasn't done any harm to others (yet haha).Please don't get attach to the example. Let's think about a situation that we know that we have a 90% of risk to people if a certain action is taken (which is not a act of violence by itself). Should we use violence to prevent that?