fwiw, I think many deontologists have neglected the question of what they should most want/hope to happen in trolley cases and the like. So my main hope for progress here is just to get them addressing that question at all. Once it's considered squarely, my hope is that at least some of them will then agree that "the reasons to save fiv…
fwiw, I think many deontologists have neglected the question of what they should most want/hope to happen in trolley cases and the like. So my main hope for progress here is just to get them addressing that question at all. Once it's considered squarely, my hope is that at least some of them will then agree that "the reasons to save five are more important than the reasons to avoid wrong". Of course, others will no doubt continue to disagree. But I think it makes sense to begin by addressing the most persuadable.
Clear cut thought experiments, where all else is held equal. In more realistic cases, the instrumental effects of the wrongdoing are likely to give even utilitarians strong reasons to oppose it: https://rychappell.substack.com/p/ethical-theory-and-practice
fwiw, I think many deontologists have neglected the question of what they should most want/hope to happen in trolley cases and the like. So my main hope for progress here is just to get them addressing that question at all. Once it's considered squarely, my hope is that at least some of them will then agree that "the reasons to save five are more important than the reasons to avoid wrong". Of course, others will no doubt continue to disagree. But I think it makes sense to begin by addressing the most persuadable.
Clear cut trolley cases, or realistic trolley cases?
Clear cut thought experiments, where all else is held equal. In more realistic cases, the instrumental effects of the wrongdoing are likely to give even utilitarians strong reasons to oppose it: https://rychappell.substack.com/p/ethical-theory-and-practice