But then you’ve already lapsed into consequentialism, and thus stuck yourself with a mandate to consider the trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences.
Yes, and deontologists and virtue ethicists consider trade offs between different principles or virtues.
This is not what deontological and virtue-theoretic politicians actually do.
This is not what consequentialists actually do either. In particular, I’ve never seen an actual utility function, much less using one to compute trade-offs.
“Look how morally brave I am for being willing to let this sort of thing happen out of pure principle!”
Well, this is also what consequentialists talking about trolley problems sound like.
Well, this is also what consequentialists talking about trolley problems sound like.
Disagreed. The correct consequentialist answer to a real-life trolley problem is to Take a Third Option and not sacrifice any lives, every time. If you find yourself stuck in a perverse situation, then yes, you pull the lever, not because it’s a good thing and you’re being brave, but because it’s the least-bad thing available in your perverse situation invented by philosophers who like perverse situations.
Yes, and deontologists and virtue ethicists consider trade offs between different principles or virtues.
This is not what consequentialists actually do either. In particular, I’ve never seen an actual utility function, much less using one to compute trade-offs.
Well, this is also what consequentialists talking about trolley problems sound like.
Disagreed. The correct consequentialist answer to a real-life trolley problem is to Take a Third Option and not sacrifice any lives, every time. If you find yourself stuck in a perverse situation, then yes, you pull the lever, not because it’s a good thing and you’re being brave, but because it’s the least-bad thing available in your perverse situation invented by philosophers who like perverse situations.