In the same way ‘would you rather’ is meant to force a decision between two unacceptable choices, the trolly problem is meant to highlight the morality of refusing to choose (and ensuring the worse decision).
If it were replaced with, say, being told to shoot one group or another by a sadistic guard, the possibility of refusing to choose would be more obvious in terms of what it means morally.
The trolley is an inanimate object. It isn’t making choices.
Political parties are more like the sadistic guard. They are making choices.
In the same way ‘would you rather’ is meant to force a decision between two unacceptable choices, the trolly problem is meant to highlight the morality of refusing to choose (and ensuring the worse decision).
in a really reductive sense, yes. The trolley problem is at it’s heart, a question of whether being involved in an atrocity is better than being uninvolved in an atrocity.
In the same way ‘would you rather’ is meant to force a decision between two unacceptable choices, the trolly problem is meant to highlight the morality of refusing to choose (and ensuring the worse decision).
The third rail is just redundant.
This is the problem with the trolley problem.
If it were replaced with, say, being told to shoot one group or another by a sadistic guard, the possibility of refusing to choose would be more obvious in terms of what it means morally.
The trolley is an inanimate object. It isn’t making choices.
Political parties are more like the sadistic guard. They are making choices.
in a really reductive sense, yes. The trolley problem is at it’s heart, a question of whether being involved in an atrocity is better than being uninvolved in an atrocity.