However, from a rule-utilitarian point of view, both pulling the lever and pushing the fat man would be morally impermissible because it would make utilitarian sense to have a rule that prohibits people from sacrificing others for reasons that they (i.e., those who are being scarified) do not share. Therefore, it is not the case that sacrificing one person to save four people is always a good moral reason.Ĭan the utilitarian use the distinction between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism to meet this challenge ? Suppose the utilitarian argues as follows:įrom an act-utilitarian point of view, the problem arises because the act of pulling the lever seems right (because one person is sacrificed for the sake of four) but the act of pushing the fat man seems wrong (even though one person is sacrificed for the sake of four).But pushing a fat man off a bridge to save four workers who are about to be killed by a runaway trolley doesn't seem like the right thing to do.According to utilitarianism, sacrificing one person to save four is always a good moral reason.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |