Saving a loved one rather than a stranger
On the axis: Criterion of right action · an act for a loved one
We save the one we love without hesitating; but is what makes that act good a calculation, a rule that permits it, good character, or the bond itself, which no morality should require us to justify?
This problem is brought out by the thought experiment Saving a loved one rather than a stranger:
A shipwreck: two people are about to drown, and you can save only one. One is a stranger, the other is your spouse. You rush, of course, toward the one you love. But a philosopher stops you: did you first check that morality permitted it, that no impartial reason gave priority to the stranger? replies that anyone who needs that check already has "one thought too many": she was your spouse, and that should be enough.
Bernard Williams, Moral Luck (1981)
You save your loved one, granted. But what, deep down, makes that act good?
Your choice above is recorded in your profile. See my profile →
Anchors: Bernard Williams
leads to: Partiality (The loved one or the stranger)