Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The solution to the paradox of deontology holds that indi... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→If numbers do not count as a reason to switch when five are at risk, then numbers also do not count as a reason not to switch when only one is at risk.

    The solution to the paradox of deontology holds that individual deaths cannot be aggregated or summed.

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Related

    If a net gain of four lives is no reason to switch toward saving the five, then ...If numbers do not count as a reason to switch when five are at risk, then number...Numerical consequences must count symmetrically or not at all.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consequentialism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Five deaths is a worse outcome than one death74%Mercy-killings (euthanasia) are outside of deontological obligations a...73%Moral catastrophes, such as a million deaths, are not really a million...72%Consequentialism and deontology are impartialist moral theories that c...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: ethics-deontological
    View source passageHide passage
    This solution to the paradox of deontology, may seem attractive, but it comes at a high cost. In Trolley, for example, where there is neither agency nor using in the relevant senses and thus no bar to switching, one cannot claim that it is better to switch and save the five. For if the deaths of the five cannot be summed, their deaths are not worse than the death of the one worker on the siding. Although there is no deontological bar to switching, neither is the saving of a net four lives a reas

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective