weather is a good ice-breaker, pardon the pun

what is hail?

hail is stones falling from the sky

you hear that? stones are going to fall from the sky tomorrow


sleet is small stones

kamm's principle of permissible harm

"it appears weird that a small segment of track which doesn't even come into play should by the doctrine of double effect now be declared impermissible."

can we flip the switch? - intuitions

push man off bridge: no
lazy susan: yes
trolley : yes
loop trolley: yes
race to brake: no

now, if we want to distinguish and formulate a theory which would justify our intutions, if i can produce another coherent explanation it would show that the PPH is not necessary.

i am leaning towards a psychological error theory, something to do with risk and causal perceptions. in both the trolley and the loop trolley case, the evil that either the 1 or the 5 face the same kind of risk, to be run over by a train, which is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that they happen to be on the tracks. they thus both share the implicit risk of being run over by the train within the situation, which is the evil which is foremost on our minds. it would thus seem unfair to introduce this risk or evil to someone who is crossing a bridge or the road on the way to the brake, although these risks exist in practice, they do not dominate in our analysis of the immediate threat. it thus seems unfair to introduce this new "threat" in which they are used as a means.

lazy susan is allowed because again the implicit risk has been introduced into the question: i.e. the risk that landslides happen and are caused by nature. regardless of the fact that you cause the landslide by rotating the lazy susan, the particular risk is already embedded in the rocks and the strata and it would seem that you did not intentionally put someone in greater danger as a result of your action. you have not increaed the overall risk of the system. and the error is that "natural" causes in these case absolve one of moral responsibility, because trapdoor, running over someone, all seem to be artificial causes, whereas trolley accidents and landlides are simply unfortunate incidents.

paradox of deontology

No comments: