= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
casebash comments on The Trolley Problem and Reversibility - 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 (27)
I don't imagine that there'd be many deontologists who'd accept all of my arguments. But I'm sure there are deontologists who'd accept some of them. Like deontologists in favour of reversing the lever pull would probably accept my argument on why it is important to reverse the lever.
It appears that you're in the no undoing whatsoever category. What is your opinion on the Obama problem? Does he have a right to rescind his drone attack order? If so, what is the principled difference between this scenario and the Trolley Problem?
I'm a virtue ethicist, not a deontologist, and I don't find that the trolley problem is ethically difficult; leaving the trolley pointed at six people is ethically acceptable, as I don't regard situations arising outside one's own decisions to have ethical importance, and switching it to the one person is also ethically acceptable, as you're changing reality for the better.
There isn't a single deontological answer to the "Obama problem". What is and is not acceptable or desirable depends on the rules that make up Obama's theoretical deontology. Deontology is a descriptive model for ethics systems, not an ethics system in and of itself.
Would you say that switching it to the one person instead of the six constitutes a "good" or is just "ethically acceptable"?
Ethically acceptable. "Good" implies a relative "Bad", and again, I don't regard situations arising outside one's own decisions to have ethical importance.