• starman2112
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah you are. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You don’t get to not involve yourself, not pulling the lever is as much an active choice to kill 5 people as pulling the lever is a choice to kill one.

    You value your own sense of self righteousness over the lives of other people, and that’s awful and selfish.

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

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

              • starman2112
                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!”

                  • starman2112
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You would rather see every Palestinian dead than only some Palestinians dead. If that’s what you think is right, then you are evil.

            • 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
                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

      You value your own sense of self righteousness over the lives of other people, and that’s awful and selfish.

      and I’d say you value your own sense of power over the lives of the person you killed.

      • starman2112
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s totally incorrect. I value the lives of the people that aren’t going to die. Unlike you, I don’t make decisions based on how I personally feel about them, but rather what the outcome will be.

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

          if you think the ends justify the means, you should look into eugenics! very interesting stuff!