The relative utilities are staggering: I wouldn’t allow a mob of 100,000 to kill another human no matter how much they wanted to and even if their quality of life was improved (up to a point).
The trouble is that pretty much all decisions that get punted far enough upstairs that they are handled by people whose job description is “politician” are trolley problems—lose-lose hypotheticals. More people die or live worse versus less people dying or living worse—which people, where, when, to what degree?
So your refusal to countenance such doesn’t stop such decisions existing—it just means you won’t be the one personally deciding. But as long as you benefit from the decision (e.g. live in society), I don’t think this actually makes you a morally purer person.
The trouble is that pretty much all decisions that get punted far enough upstairs that they are handled by people whose job description is “politician” are trolley problems—lose-lose hypotheticals. More people die or live worse versus less people dying or living worse—which people, where, when, to what degree?
So your refusal to countenance such doesn’t stop such decisions existing—it just means you won’t be the one personally deciding. But as long as you benefit from the decision (e.g. live in society), I don’t think this actually makes you a morally purer person.