RE: Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics
January 25, 2018 at 2:41 pm
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2018 at 2:45 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
In fairness, both thought experiments arbitrarily limit a mountain of considerations that factor into our moral intuitons. You even limited consequentialism to considering the numbers, also arbitrarily, and didn't notice in limiting it to numbers there was still a better solution contained and not ruled out in the case of the doctor. Saving 6 for 1 instead of 5 for 1. Which was the only similarity between the two as proposed in the first place.
A consequentialist can, consistently, decide to save an important person over 5 randos, but also to save 5 randos over one rando, though.
A consequentialist can, consistently, decide to save an important person over 5 randos, but also to save 5 randos over one rando, though.
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!
