Yeah… so does not… that’s the whole damn trolley problem thing… there were clear and defined outcomes for not pulling the switch. May have been justifiable, not even debating that, but you still own the choice.
If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a “depraved indifference” to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought.
That was not an option on the table. Again, if you think it’ll lead to a better tomorrow so be it, but acknowledge the bodies paving the road.
voting makes them responsible for the bodies.
Yeah… so does not… that’s the whole damn trolley problem thing… there were clear and defined outcomes for not pulling the switch. May have been justifiable, not even debating that, but you still own the choice.
doesn’t have an answer. it’s a thought experiment to expose your personal ethics. deontologists never touch the switch.
deontologists still get splattered, even if it’s the correct choice.
but they have no responsibility for the circumstances.
Didn’t say they did. People die none the less. If that’s acceptable that’s fine, but call it what it is: An acceptable loss.
it is immoral to flip the switch and murder someone. that doesn’t make the situation acceptable
I don’t disagree, it doesn’t change that you need to own the bodies as an acceptable loss.
you can’t be responsible for something you didn’t cause. that’s not how responsibility works.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
There are differing opinions on that depending on which philosopher is at the switch. What doesn’t change is they all have to watch the carnage.
but some of them choose to become murderers
No, all of them did. Through action or inaction. So again, if it was in service of a better tomorrow so be it, but it is what it is.
you can’t murder through inaction, unless words don’t mean anything.
Murder, maybe not, but “allow to die through in-action” sure can.