I am not a deontologist, but it’s clear you’re painting the entire school of thought with a fairly broad brush.
However, deontologists would say that you don’t have the right to make that decision.
It is hard to argue against this conclusion, assuming that there is a strong moral obligation for Aaron not to flick the switch, along the lines of “Do not kill”.
I can’t see any pathway to find a logical contradiction, but I can’t imagine that many people would defend this state of affairs.
It is hoped that this post won’t be oversimplified into a, “this is why you are wrong” post, but to help deontologists understand and refine their commitments better.
The entire tone of the post reeks of strawmanning. There is no discussion regarding how different sets of deontological rules might come to seperate conclusions. Each premise is assumed to be correct and there is zero effort made to exploring why it might be wrong (see: steel manning). And finally, almost every paragraph ends with a statement along the lines of:
″...it seems...”
″...seems consistent with...”
″...I can’t imagine that...”
″...this doesn’t seem...”
″...seems strange to suggest...”
″...this seems like a very hard position to defend.”
If you ignore the ethical prescriptivism, there’s not a whole lot of substance left.
Deontology is a very broad philosophical position and so it is hard to avoid broad brush strokes whilst also trying to keep an article to a reasonable length. If there is a need, then I will write a follow up article that dives into how this problem relates to more specific deontological positions based upon feedback.
“And finally, almost every paragraph ends with a statement along the lines of: it seems...”—the purpose of this article was to demonstrate that someone who has accepted deontology will most likely find themselves accepting some kind of strange philosophical commitments. I wanted to acknowledge the fact that there were many points at which a deontologist might object to my chain of thought and to not overrepresent how strong the chains of logic were.
I am not a deontologist, but it’s clear you’re painting the entire school of thought with a fairly broad brush.
The entire tone of the post reeks of strawmanning. There is no discussion regarding how different sets of deontological rules might come to seperate conclusions. Each premise is assumed to be correct and there is zero effort made to exploring why it might be wrong (see: steel manning). And finally, almost every paragraph ends with a statement along the lines of:
″...it seems...”
″...seems consistent with...”
″...I can’t imagine that...”
″...this doesn’t seem...”
″...seems strange to suggest...”
″...this seems like a very hard position to defend.”
If you ignore the ethical prescriptivism, there’s not a whole lot of substance left.
Deontology is a very broad philosophical position and so it is hard to avoid broad brush strokes whilst also trying to keep an article to a reasonable length. If there is a need, then I will write a follow up article that dives into how this problem relates to more specific deontological positions based upon feedback.
“And finally, almost every paragraph ends with a statement along the lines of: it seems...”—the purpose of this article was to demonstrate that someone who has accepted deontology will most likely find themselves accepting some kind of strange philosophical commitments. I wanted to acknowledge the fact that there were many points at which a deontologist might object to my chain of thought and to not overrepresent how strong the chains of logic were.