RE: Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics
January 24, 2018 at 1:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2018 at 1:31 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
Vulcan, I agree with Steve that the 2 scenarios are not morally equivalent, though not sure I would use the "responsibility/no responsibility" way of explaining why. Ill leave that up to steve since it was his analysis.
For my own part, I'd use the principle of double effect like I explained in my first post.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
For my own part, I'd use the principle of double effect like I explained in my first post.
Quote:The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. According to the principle of double effect, sometimes it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
"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