Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 2:20:09
In reply to Re: Six, posted by Rach on March 2, 2005, at 1:01:19
> No, it's not acceptable to me to do nothing in this case. The difference is, that by acting in the train case, I deliberately cause death.
Yes. Though you are also fully aware of the consequences of your inaction... You could say that you deliberately cause their death via inaction.
I agree that there is an intuitively appealing difference between pulling a trigger - and standing by and letting someone else pull a trigger, for example. But I don't know... Is there really a morally relevant difference? Do we (morally) condemn those who stood by and watched less than those who pulled the trigger themselves?? If so then how much less? If you could work out a weighting for 'how much less' you could figure that in to a utilitarian calculation. If we decided for instance that standing by and watching is half as bad as committing the deed oneself then can we go 1+1+1+1+1=2.5 (because 1 person being allowed to die = .5) While committing the deed oneself is 1=1? Does this seem overly silly???
What would that imply for the train case???
>instead we are responsible for the consequences of our actions.
Are we also responsible for the consequences of our inactions when there is something that we could have done to save them but didn't??
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464517
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465321.html