= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kyrorh comments on Value ethics vs. agency ethics - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (60)
I don't think that failing to act is infringing on the five's agency since they would die anyways if I wasn't there. So I'm not limiting their choices, I'm merely failing to increase them.
And try to see it from my perspective, where any decision-process that results in one innocent person being tortured in order to somewhat improve the lives of others isn't something I can accept.
But in the Trolley Problem thought-experiment you are there. If you aren't there, your actions won't have any relevance to the situation anyway.
You state that infringing on someone's agency is evil (makes someone a bad guy). How doeares your actions (just like not choosing is also a choice, not acting can also be an action) leading to the loss of 5 agency as opposed to 1 agency justified in this?
And torture vs. dust-specks is a different beast from the Trolley Problem, in my opinion, so I'm not going to respond to that part.
If I enter your house and clean your dishes and then leave, when you come home you see your clean dishes and can deduce that someone was in your house. If on the other hand I don't change anything, you cannot. So acting and not acting are in fact different and axiomatically denying that difference makes you draw a in my opinion wrong conclusion.