• ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    This shit is getting annoying because it’s such a fundamental misunderstanding of what the trolley problem tries to tell you. You cannot use the trolley problem to prove that utilitarianism is better. The entire point is to show the difference between deontology and utilitarianism. It’s just tiring to watch.

    • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      True, it’s a misapplication of the original thought experiment.

      But it also kind of lays bare the consequences of choosing “the moral high ground” over an outcomes-based approach to morality. And I think that is still a useful thing.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I just don’t think it’s useful. Trying to argue against a non consequentialist ethical position with consequences is like beating your head against the wall. It’s just an endless circular argument.

        • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 minutes ago

          Sometimes people ignore consequences because they simply haven’t thought through the consequences. That’s a very normal human thing. Laying it out this way can persuade some people.

          Some people might even become consequentialist when shown the consequences they hadn’t fully considered before.