> Both you and your twin will kill five other people over the course of their lives.
This is false. I see no supporting argument for this premise.
> But then you get the result that the correct morality still generates prisoners’ dilemmas.
Makes no sense. You don’t define what such a dilemma is, and I don’t see one here in any event. You’re just saying it’s wrong to kill one to save 5. The fact that you can also kill two people to save 10 adds nothing. You two both cooperating doesn’t yield the best result, it still violates the rule against murder.
> Thus, every person, including the “victim” of the killing would want you to kill the person
I don’t know what victims you’re talking to, but I certainly wouldn’t want to die painlessly in that circumstance.
> Even though the moral character of both deontologists would be sullied more
I don’t know what moral character means. I do know that violating the rules is bad.
> Both you and your twin will kill five other people over the course of their lives.
This is false. I see no supporting argument for this premise.
> But then you get the result that the correct morality still generates prisoners’ dilemmas.
Makes no sense. You don’t define what such a dilemma is, and I don’t see one here in any event. You’re just saying it’s wrong to kill one to save 5. The fact that you can also kill two people to save 10 adds nothing. You two both cooperating doesn’t yield the best result, it still violates the rule against murder.
> Thus, every person, including the “victim” of the killing would want you to kill the person
I don’t know what victims you’re talking to, but I certainly wouldn’t want to die painlessly in that circumstance.
> Even though the moral character of both deontologists would be sullied more
I don’t know what moral character means. I do know that violating the rules is bad.