A runaway trolley is on course to kill five people, but if you pull a lever it will be diverted to a track where it will kill only one person. Should you pull the lever? Does that make you a murderer?
You: There is no correct answer to this.
A politician who will commit multiple genocides is fighting an election against a politician who will commit one genocide. Should you vote for latter politician? Does that make you complicit in genocide?
You: This is obviously completely different from a trolley problem, and consequentialist and deontological ethics are not relevant in this situation.
there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they’d use in politics. and, to that end, deontologists never pull the lever.
there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they’d use in politics.
Literally the point that I was making in my original comment.
voting for genocide is wrong
If you’re a deontologist. Whereas a consequentialist would argue that allowing more genocide to occur when you could have voted for less genocide is wrong. And, as we’ve established, neither position is objectively the correct one. It depends on you as a person. And let’s not even get into virtue ethics.
great. it seems like you understand that the trolley analogy doesn’t have a single answer
and if you are attacking deontology, you are going to need to overcome all the justifications that deontologists (who make up a plurality of professional philosophers) would proffer.
so you can decide if the right thing for yourself to do is to vote for small genocide or to vote “against big genocide” (ifthe option offered is voting for small genocide) but you can’t decide for others.
I’m not attacking deontology. Or consequentialism.
I’m a bit confused as to why we’re arguing when you haven’t actually said anything I disagree with since your first response, so I am going to guess that what has happened here is that because I formatted my original comment as “here is the argument for why voting is bad”, “here is the counter-argument for why it isn’t”, it comes across as me thinking that the counter-argument is a refutation. That’s not my position. I was not trying to state a position. I was merely trying to put forward my analysis of why there is debate by offering the arguments I commonly see both for and against, and I put the “against voting” arguments first because that most directly answers the question I was responding to.
I think we both agree that there is no correct answer to the trolley problem beyond what is correct to you personally, and I think we both agree that there is no correct answer as to whether you should vote beyond what is correct to you personally. That is why I think the trolley problem is relevant.
FWIW I think that my “I will not vote for Labour” stance demonstrates that I at least lean more toward the deontological position (in this case, at least), but in truth I couldn’t honestly tell you that I’ve come to a firm moral decision. If the Tories and Reform have some fresh new lunatics in charge come the next election I may well be scared enough to change my mind.
A runaway trolley is on course to kill five people, but if you pull a lever it will be diverted to a track where it will kill only one person. Should you pull the lever? Does that make you a murderer?
You: There is no correct answer to this.
A politician who will commit multiple genocides is fighting an election against a politician who will commit one genocide. Should you vote for latter politician? Does that make you complicit in genocide?
You: This is obviously completely different from a trolley problem, and consequentialist and deontological ethics are not relevant in this situation.
there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they’d use in politics. and, to that end, deontologists never pull the lever.
voting for genocide is wrong
Literally the point that I was making in my original comment.
If you’re a deontologist. Whereas a consequentialist would argue that allowing more genocide to occur when you could have voted for less genocide is wrong. And, as we’ve established, neither position is objectively the correct one. It depends on you as a person. And let’s not even get into virtue ethics.
great. it seems like you understand that the trolley analogy doesn’t have a single answer
and if you are attacking deontology, you are going to need to overcome all the justifications that deontologists (who make up a plurality of professional philosophers) would proffer.
so you can decide if the right thing for yourself to do is to vote for small genocide or to vote “against big genocide” (ifthe option offered is voting for small genocide) but you can’t decide for others.
I’m not attacking deontology. Or consequentialism.
I’m a bit confused as to why we’re arguing when you haven’t actually said anything I disagree with since your first response, so I am going to guess that what has happened here is that because I formatted my original comment as “here is the argument for why voting is bad”, “here is the counter-argument for why it isn’t”, it comes across as me thinking that the counter-argument is a refutation. That’s not my position. I was not trying to state a position. I was merely trying to put forward my analysis of why there is debate by offering the arguments I commonly see both for and against, and I put the “against voting” arguments first because that most directly answers the question I was responding to.
I think we both agree that there is no correct answer to the trolley problem beyond what is correct to you personally, and I think we both agree that there is no correct answer as to whether you should vote beyond what is correct to you personally. That is why I think the trolley problem is relevant.
FWIW I think that my “I will not vote for Labour” stance demonstrates that I at least lean more toward the deontological position (in this case, at least), but in truth I couldn’t honestly tell you that I’ve come to a firm moral decision. If the Tories and Reform have some fresh new lunatics in charge come the next election I may well be scared enough to change my mind.