Comment

Comment on So um, america just started another war in the middle east. We're going to need a shit ton more memes to americans from the nightmare they are enduring. Thanks in advance...

<- View Parent

WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

Christ, do they not teach the trolley problem anymore?

It’s honestly quite funny and downright sad that you would quote the trolley problem. There’s a reason it’s brought up in ethics courses. The whole point of the trolley problem is that there is no correct solution to it. Different ethical systems arrive at different conclusions. But here you are, going, “fuck how it’s actually used, I’ve decided the trolley problem proves that utilitarian ethics is the correct answer!”

In a utilitarian ethics framework, you would choose to run over the 1 guy or choose to vote for Kamala. In a respect for persons ethical framework, you would take no action and would refuse to vote for either Kamala or Trump.

You’ve completely failed to learn the core lesson of the trolley problem.

source

Sort:hotnew top

agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
What are you talking about? In any ethical framework, the trolley problem presents you with the conflicting guilts of action and infection. The ethical frameworks don’t do anything but justify whichever guilt you choose.

source
- WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  medium.com/…/the-trolly-problem-utilitarianism-vs…
  
  If one were to take a utilitarian standpoint, the means are justified by the end, which from a utilitarianist perspective, is the maximization of benefit. Hence, for a utilitarianist, whatever option guarantees the outcome of the maximum benefit is what is moral. Therefore, in the trolly case, a follower of classical utilitarianism would say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice 1 to save 5.
  
  The deontological perspective in contrast, advocates for the means justifying the end. This, for a deontologist, the morality of the action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than being based on the consequence. In this light, a follower of deontologism would argue that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice one to save five because making the choice of having to kill someone is inherently wrong.
  
  Again, this is the entire point of the trolley problem. No one actually give a shit about the hypothetical trolley. The whole point is to explore how different ethical systems can lead to different outcomes. There is no “right answer” to the trolley problem.
  
  source
  - agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    How does that have acting to do with what I said? What I said was
    
    In any ethical framework, the trolley problem presents you with the conflicting guilts of action and inaction. The ethical frameworks don’t do anything but justify whichever guilt you choose.
    
    When did I say there was a right answer?
    
    source