Every moral system works on central cases and falls apart at the tails (edge cases). It seems that in your dialog person C implicitly acknowledges this, while B is trying to accomplish the impossible task of constructing a moral system that both always self-consistent and non-repugnant at the edges.
B (at least B as I intended him) is trying to create consistent general principles that minimize that inevitable repugnancy. I definitely agree that it is entirely impossible to get rid of it, but some take the attitude of “then I’ll have to accept some repugnancy to have a consistent system” rather than “I shall abandon consistency and maintain my intuition in those repugnant edge cases.”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but that was at least the distinction I intended to convey.
Every moral system works on central cases and falls apart at the tails (edge cases). It seems that in your dialog person C implicitly acknowledges this, while B is trying to accomplish the impossible task of constructing a moral system that both always self-consistent and non-repugnant at the edges.
B (at least B as I intended him) is trying to create consistent general principles that minimize that inevitable repugnancy. I definitely agree that it is entirely impossible to get rid of it, but some take the attitude of “then I’ll have to accept some repugnancy to have a consistent system” rather than “I shall abandon consistency and maintain my intuition in those repugnant edge cases.”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but that was at least the distinction I intended to convey.