You're viewing part of a thread.
Yeah... so does not... that's the whole damn trolley problem thing... there were clear and defined outcomes for not pulling the switch. May have been justifiable, not even debating that, but you still own the choice.
the whole damn trolley problem thing
doesn't have an answer. it's a thought experiment to expose your personal ethics. deontologists never touch the switch.
deontologists still get splattered, even if it's the correct choice.
but they have no responsibility for the circumstances.
Didn't say they did. People die none the less. If that's acceptable that's fine, but call it what it is: An acceptable loss.
it is immoral to flip the switch and murder someone. that doesn't make the situation acceptable
I don't disagree, it doesn't change that you need to own the bodies as an acceptable loss.
no, you don't need to accept it.
doesn't make much difference to the bodies
except that you're not locked in a booth, so there actually are things you can do besides pull a lever.
I'm done with this, but no, there was not. I respect and acknowledge anyone choosing a protest, I really do. I'm a registered libertarian for gods sakes. There we two choices, one was going to win, the other wasn't. If the reason someone allowed people to die was because less people would die in the future so be it, when it came down to it, that was the only choice on the table. Would have loved if it was different, but it wasn't. You don't get to avoid the splatter.
you can't be responsible for something you didn't cause. that's not how responsibility works.
There are differing opinions on that depending on which philosopher is at the switch. What doesn't change is they all have to watch the carnage.
but some of them choose to become murderers
No, all of them did. Through action or inaction. So again, if it was in service of a better tomorrow so be it, but it is what it is.
you can't murder through inaction, unless words don't mean anything.
If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a "depraved indifference" to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought.
In United States law, depraved-heart murder, also known as depraved-indifference murder, is a type of murder where an individual acts with a "depraved indifference" to human life and where such acts result in a death, despite that individual not explicitly intending to kill. In a depraved-heart murder, defendants commit an act even though they know their act runs an unusually high risk of causing death or serious bodily harm to a person. If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a "depraved indifference" to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought.
why wouldn't you show the whole paragraph?
this is cherrypicking
I don’t understand how can it be cherry-picking when it is a reply to a comment, which stated in it’s entirety
you can't murder through inaction, unless words don't mean anything.
the full definition requires an act. you cherry picked one ambiguously worded section.
Summaries are by definition ambiguous. They’re quick overviews of a subject, not in-depth analysis. If I wanted to cherry pick like a troll, I wouldn’t have linked to a source, which itself has footnotes.
As far as US law is concerned, it is entirely possible to murder through inaction. That is my only point.
It ["depraved heart" murder] is the form [of murder] that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence... It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence... It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not.
Murder, maybe not, but "allow to die through in-action" sure can.