RE: Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics
January 24, 2018 at 4:33 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2018 at 4:52 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Even as a pure numbers game one option is quantitatively better than the others. I think that difficulties with c-ethics as people often express them -are- difficulties with whether or not it's "just a numbers game" - which isn't actually the position of c-ethics anyway...though if we wanted to approach it that way it becomes easier, not more difficult, at least on it's own grounds.
Simple math can hardly be said to be inconsistent, whatever else it may be, lol.
@Vulcan, what are your opinions on ethical pluralism? Perhaps c-ethics isn't the best way to approach either dilemma..but if so, which do you think might make more informative comments in either (or both) of those two hypotheticals?
Side bar, assuming that some hypotheticals can;t be consistently approached with a singular ethics, could it be that having different people approach the same situation with seperate ethics gives us a more complete picture of all possible ethical ramifications of any given hypothetical? Could this be qualitatively advantageous to us?
For example, where c-ethics (or c-ethicists) fail to produce the desired outcome or cannot be applied..perhaps d-ethics (or d-ethicists) pick up the slack and get us the rest of the way. Or VV, ofc? Not so much superceeding each other, as collaborating.
Simple math can hardly be said to be inconsistent, whatever else it may be, lol.
@Vulcan, what are your opinions on ethical pluralism? Perhaps c-ethics isn't the best way to approach either dilemma..but if so, which do you think might make more informative comments in either (or both) of those two hypotheticals?
Side bar, assuming that some hypotheticals can;t be consistently approached with a singular ethics, could it be that having different people approach the same situation with seperate ethics gives us a more complete picture of all possible ethical ramifications of any given hypothetical? Could this be qualitatively advantageous to us?
For example, where c-ethics (or c-ethicists) fail to produce the desired outcome or cannot be applied..perhaps d-ethics (or d-ethicists) pick up the slack and get us the rest of the way. Or VV, ofc? Not so much superceeding each other, as collaborating.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
