I dunno’, I’d MUCH rather have someone in charge that knowingly saves five than cowardly allowing them to die… The person who can dismiss five deaths is FAR more likely to be a horrible piece of shit.
From that standpoint, you can ask interesting questions by tweaking the numbers.
Would you want someone in charge who’s willing to actively kill 5000 people to save 5200?
What about killing 1 person for a 50% chance of saving 5?
As soon as you accept that killing people is morally OK, you open yourself up to math and the decision of how to measure the value of a person’s life.
They’re saying if you are okay to pull the lever in ANY case, then you’re going to be trying to do math in EVERY case.
Some cases will be easy, but others will be hard. Which is fine - public safety isn’t easy, neither is hostage negotiation or combat or wherever this comes into play in real life.
I dunno’, I’d MUCH rather have someone in charge that knowingly saves five than cowardly allowing them to die… The person who can dismiss five deaths is FAR more likely to be a horrible piece of shit.
Yeah I totally agree, well said.
From that standpoint, you can ask interesting questions by tweaking the numbers.
Would you want someone in charge who’s willing to actively kill 5000 people to save 5200?
What about killing 1 person for a 50% chance of saving 5?
As soon as you accept that killing people is morally OK, you open yourself up to math and the decision of how to measure the value of a person’s life.
Not really, because that is quite directly changing the question. Not all questions SHOULD have the same answer. That’s just extremist stupidity.
Oh I don’t think you disagree with them!
They’re saying if you are okay to pull the lever in ANY case, then you’re going to be trying to do math in EVERY case.
Some cases will be easy, but others will be hard. Which is fine - public safety isn’t easy, neither is hostage negotiation or combat or wherever this comes into play in real life.