He is forced to kill. — hypericin
What about simply being compelled to kill someone? — hypericin
1. If all available options violate rights, can morality demand a choice at all?
2. Does the reframed problem prove that utilitarianism is the only viable framework when non-interference is impossible?
3. Can an individualist ethic survive scenarios where all choices involve direct harm?
4. Is the moral guilt of killing one equal to the moral guilt of killing three, or are outcomes morally significant regardless of principles?
5. Does the reframed trolley problem show that philosophy must move beyond rigid doctrines and toward pluralistic ethics? — Copernicus
Why not? It seems plausible that some rights are more important than others. — 83nt0n
Sometimes, the consequences are just more important than rights — 83nt0n
Yes, why not? — 83nt0n
I would probably feel more guilty killing three people than one. — 83nt0n
I am in favor of moving toward pluralistic ethics. — 83nt0n
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.