RE: Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics
January 24, 2018 at 6:26 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2018 at 6:27 pm by SaStrike.)
(January 24, 2018 at 12:56 pm)SteveII Wrote: The thought experiments are not equivalent. In the trolley scenario , you have control and responsibility over the thing that is causing the death(s). In the organ scenario, you don't have control and responsibility over the thing that is causing the deaths. What you have is control over one solution to the problem that may or may not be better than the problem. Nowhere in the organ scenario is there any responsibility to decide.
To whomever chooses "consistent", that is disturbing, but in line with the morality one can glean from a totally naturalistic/deterministic worldview--which is to say an entirely subjective morality.
I don't agree. Pulling the lever to guide a train towards a person is murder. So is removing organs of a person (In order to save 5 people). You're not a surgeon so the surgery option seems a bit harsher than pulling a lever. But basically the same thing. Both scenarios have 5 people about to die (without interference). And one person which is getting killed by YOU.
How anyone can get inconsistent is a bit puzzling. You change "destiny" and kill people only when it's as easy as pulling a lever?
Ok nvm it's been discussed.
