The question isn’t can’t I, but why should I? The LCPW is a tool for strengthening an argument against something, it’s not something that requires a person to accept or answer arbitrary hypotheticals.
As noted at the end of the article, the recommendation is to separate rejecting the entire argument vs accepting the argument contingent on an inconvenient fact. In this particular case, I categorically reject the argument that trolley problems should be answered in a utilitarian way, because I am not a utilitarian.
The question isn’t can’t I, but why should I? The LCPW is a tool for strengthening an argument against something, it’s not something that requires a person to accept or answer arbitrary hypotheticals.
As noted at the end of the article, the recommendation is to separate rejecting the entire argument vs accepting the argument contingent on an inconvenient fact. In this particular case, I categorically reject the argument that trolley problems should be answered in a utilitarian way, because I am not a utilitarian.