could this solve it?
if we take the initial premise of an unmanned maintenance trolley careering down a hill, would derailment be a viable third option?
I accept it doesn't apply to the fat man version.
>>7920434
The only legal option is to do nothing. Get involved and you are guilty of murder
Ethics is aesthetics.
So it doesn't count.
I assume that the derailment would halt the trolley before it could cause any deaths
>>7920470
let's say a man heavily infected with advanced ebola agitatedly tries to get on a bus full of people.
the only way to prevent him getting on is by killing him.
let's assume you alone are wearing a full hazmat suit to remove self defence from the equation.
what is legal...
Are you guilty of murder by giving a man condemned to a horrible death a swift end?
Are you guilty of murder knowingly allowing dozens of people and the people they could meet to contract a horrible illness and die?
The results matter. If you take the action with least deathtoll, then its the right thing to do. Its not really up to discussion unless you support more deaths
>>7920434
You switch it, every time.
>>7920552
Self defense laws are applicable if you're defending other people though, aren't they?
>>7920552
Ebola's death rate with treatment is somewhere around 25% so it's no death sentence to the people infected, but causative ethics is the best normative ethics so I'd consider doing it still. Part of the reason ebola had high death rates in the past is subsaharan africa being underdeveloped and having wars.
>>7920592
>>7920599
Very few pro philosophers argue for the situation with more deaths. It is a pretty crappy dillema, other than as a way to illustrate that people react to moral dillemas differently when they are phrased differently.
>>7920599
>>7920592
Every person who dies because of starvation, you COULD have sent them food. Every person who dies from exposure of being homeless, you COULD have bought them an apartment. If somebody dies of a violent crime, you COULD have gone to that location to check up on them and defend them.
If you equate "inaction" to being "responsible for murder", then every human on Earth is guilty of several thousand murders a day.
The most ethical answer is to do nothing
Letting die>killing
apply nash equilibrium
then mow down group you like least
>>7920617
It's not called a self defense law, it's called good Samaritan law. Some states are cool with it some aren't. A lot of northern states will put you in jail if you shoot he guy robbing your neighbors house. I own a shotgun for my protection but I can't put in a slug and nail the dude down the street firing at bystanders.
>>7920434
cool plebeian dilemma bro
>>7921933
>Cartesian demon
Fucking dropped. Come back when you found me a curvilinear one.
