This kind of situation is referred to as the problem of dirty hands: what do you do when there are two choices and both of them are morally wrong? Politicians are especially prone to these kinds of decisions; what should they do? There are a number of responses to it - perhaps the most common one in real life is to deny that there are only two choices. *grin* We're always looking for another solution.
That doesn't answer the theoretical question, of course, although I suspect that most people would agree on the broad answer ("do what causes the least harm") while disagreeing on which action that is.
I suspect that most people would agree on the broad answer ("do what causes the least harm") while disagreeing on which action that is.
This was recently made very clear to me this semester in my first philosophy class. For the most part, we agreed on the least harm principle, however out of just 13 students in the class, we had wildly different ideas on what that entailed.
(no subject)
This kind of situation is referred to as the problem of dirty hands: what do you do when there are two choices and both of them are morally wrong? Politicians are especially prone to these kinds of decisions; what should they do? There are a number of responses to it - perhaps the most common one in real life is to deny that there are only two choices. *grin* We're always looking for another solution.
That doesn't answer the theoretical question, of course, although I suspect that most people would agree on the broad answer ("do what causes the least harm") while disagreeing on which action that is.
(no subject)
This was recently made very clear to me this semester in my first philosophy class. For the most part, we agreed on the least harm principle, however out of just 13 students in the class, we had wildly different ideas on what that entailed.