Yes but I'm taking it further than that because I'm also talking about the inapplicability of the mere aggregation of utility.
I mean like... I would say that if it's 5 people suffering a painless death from a trolley and 1 person suffering an extremely painful death from a trolly, and asked if that was moral then we're talking about a more complicated scenario than the basic question.
Furthermore I am taking it a step further than that because I'm saying: Let's say the 5 people do suffer but a pain far less significant than the first person, and let's also say that all 5 people who die will be barely missed but the first person was much loved and his/her death will cause much grief. I am saying can the smaller sufferings and smaller grief caused by the other 5 people be meaningfully "added up" /aggregated in such a way in utilitarian terms as to outweigh the one other person who was killed who suffered far more and who was much more greatly missed and grieved over.... or rather should each individual -including those who grieved as well as the sufferings of those who were directly killed AND including all the long term impact of suffering afterwards - be treated as separate and the peak suffering is what should really be considered (the one person) and merely it is just the case that it would be biased, unjust, and unrealistic to generally assume anything other than the reasonable assumption that greater quantity of deaths and suffering = generally more intense qualititve death and suffering, as a general moral principle.
I mean like... I would say that if it's 5 people suffering a painless death from a trolley and 1 person suffering an extremely painful death from a trolly, and asked if that was moral then we're talking about a more complicated scenario than the basic question.
Furthermore I am taking it a step further than that because I'm saying: Let's say the 5 people do suffer but a pain far less significant than the first person, and let's also say that all 5 people who die will be barely missed but the first person was much loved and his/her death will cause much grief. I am saying can the smaller sufferings and smaller grief caused by the other 5 people be meaningfully "added up" /aggregated in such a way in utilitarian terms as to outweigh the one other person who was killed who suffered far more and who was much more greatly missed and grieved over.... or rather should each individual -including those who grieved as well as the sufferings of those who were directly killed AND including all the long term impact of suffering afterwards - be treated as separate and the peak suffering is what should really be considered (the one person) and merely it is just the case that it would be biased, unjust, and unrealistic to generally assume anything other than the reasonable assumption that greater quantity of deaths and suffering = generally more intense qualititve death and suffering, as a general moral principle.
