So i've been interested in utilitarianism lately and while i disagree with such ethics i thought to myself would it really be all that bad to remove our ability to suffer.
The definition of suffering that im using is having an expirience that is contrary to the will or wants of a person.
In the 18th century of our lord David hume came with an objection to moral realism called the "Is ought gap" the main idea behind the problem is that you can't really get an "ought" from an "is". What i think Hume was critiquing is the lack of a definition of a "need" or rather a duty in the metaethics of moral realists, like us. Now the main answer to Hume's problem is that duty is a need like a condition. Ie. you need to do action a because it is a need/condition for you to remain in or become a certain state of character, that state of character is called virtue or goodnes.
The 2 questions i have are this:
Can catholics accept this view of duty?
If duty is like what i just described here then how can we resolve the problem of multiple duties? In this problem both the duties that church tells us to follow and other duties are equally valid. The best example of this is the duty of the toaster in which if we wish to fullfill the virtue of the character of the toasterman we have to make toast, this duty is equally valid as the normal catholic moral duties. Unless there is a way to make the duties of the church more valuable?
Arent these things ontologically separate things?
Considering Spielberg's recent statements.
what are some good arguments against the ancient astronaut theory of the origin evolution and life on earth and the origin of religion.