• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    not pulling the lever is as much an active choice to kill 5 people as pulling the lever is a choice to kill one.

    that’s not what deontologists believe

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t care what deontologists believe. They value their own sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority over the lives of other people, and that’s evil. If you would rather see a woman raped than commit an act of violence against her rapist because committing violence is always wrong, you are evil. If you accept that there are situations where committing acts of violence aren’t necessarily wrong, you aren’t a deontologist and don’t get to use it as an excuse not to pull the lever.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then you’re not a deontologist. It’s definitional. Actions have inherent moral value, regardless of the situation. If something is ever not permissible, then it’s always not permissible. That’s what deontologists believe, isn’t it? If not, then you’re still taking a consequentialist stance on morality, but with extra steps that allow you to claim that your own inaction is actually the right thing to do, but only when you decided not to take action.

          If you don’t think violence is always wrong, then what’s your excuse for not pulling the lever, or voting for the person who would cause less suffering? To my eyes, those are situations where the “violence” I’m commiting is permissible because it leads to less suffering than inaction would.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            then what’s your excuse for not pulling the lever

            the categorical imperative. if I were tied to the track I would not want someone to send a trolley hurtling at me when they have the choice not to do that.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Regardless of whether you pull the lever, you are sending the trolley hurtling at someone. You don’t get to say you didn’t choose for the 5 people to die. Walking away from the lever is as active a choice as pulling it. Deontology is just an excuse to not do the right thing when it makes you feel bad.

              If you were tied to the track, there would be a 5 in 6 chance that you’re among the ones that the trolley is already hurtling towards. With your own reasoning here, pulling the lever is desired by far more people than not pulling the lever. Doesn’t that mean you have a moral imperative to pull it?

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Then you’re not a deontologist. It’s definitional

            wrong. what does kant think we should do about murder?

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t know, and frankly I don’t care. You reply too much. Enjoy the blood on your hands when you see every Palestinian dead and every American woman who has a miscarriage jailed because you allowed Desantis to win in 2024. At least you can pay yourself on the back and say “it’s not my fault, I didn’t want him to win, but the guy who wouldn’t have funded the genocide of the Palestinians and stacked the supreme court with religious extremists was mean to people!”