Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
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.
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!”
That’s too bad, the choices are some or all. One of the two will happen, and you will have an impact on which one does. If all of them die because you voted 3rd party, that’s partially on you.
I’m going to take the action that will lead to the least unnecessary suffering. It’s not my fault that the two choices are some or all, and given the choice between the two, allowing all of them to die would be evil. Will you be allowing all Palestinians to die?
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.
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?
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.
wrong. what does kant think we should do about murder?
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!”
this has no bearing on whether I’m right (I am)
You would rather see every Palestinian dead than only some Palestinians dead. If that’s what you think is right, then you are evil.
id rather no Palestinians were dead, and I’m not going to vote for someone who will find their genocide-- a little or a lot.
That’s too bad, the choices are some or all. One of the two will happen, and you will have an impact on which one does. If all of them die because you voted 3rd party, that’s partially on you.
it’s on the people that voted to kill Palestinians. will you be voting to kill Palestinians?
I’m going to take the action that will lead to the least unnecessary suffering. It’s not my fault that the two choices are some or all, and given the choice between the two, allowing all of them to die would be evil. Will you be allowing all Palestinians to die?
biden is funding the Palestinian genocide now.
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.
deleted by creator
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?
no, I’m not. someone else has put all the pieces into place.
no.