RE: Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics
January 24, 2018 at 12:56 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2018 at 12:56 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
The 2 scenarios are ethically different.
In the first scenario you are diverting a train so that the least amount of people are killed. The one person dying is an unintended consequence of you rescuing 5 people. In Catholic moral theology we call this the principle of double effect. A moral loophole, if you will, in extreme moral dilemmas.
In the second scenario, you are actively and directly killing an innocent person by your own choice, which is never moral.
In the first scenario you are diverting a train so that the least amount of people are killed. The one person dying is an unintended consequence of you rescuing 5 people. In Catholic moral theology we call this the principle of double effect. A moral loophole, if you will, in extreme moral dilemmas.
In the second scenario, you are actively and directly killing an innocent person by your own choice, which is never moral.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
