"If one does not immediately commit suicide then it’s possible that they’ll violate rights. Lots of ways this could happen."
I'll turn this - it's highly plausible that accepting that your ideology mandates that you commit suicide could lead to even more rights violations. It may cause you to abandon that ideology, which means that you will violate rights or (even worse) become a utilitarian. It would mean that you fail and somehow cause someone else's rights to be violated. Perhaps you have adopted some ethical duties and killing yourself would violate those. It would take a pretty high level of certainty that you would violate someone's rights before that becomes an option. And I would say that one can probably have their rights violated if they are pressured into committing suicide. You might say that it makes no sense for someone to violate their own rights, but I would say that there's clearly a rights violation happening when someone is pressured to kill themselves, in that we should not be suicidal unless there's a good reason.
As for the specific examples - There's a 0% chance I become a serial killer, so I'm not worried about that.
Hitting pedestrians is bad, but doing it on accident isn't an infinite rights violation. I won't become a serial killer, so not going to do it intentionally.
Something horrific in a fit of rage - certainly possible,, though not probable enough to overcome the rights violations of killing myself or changing my mind after entertaining the thought.
As for the Witch, giving in to Pascal's wager is a rights violation.
Additionally, I think that your denouncement of discounting percentages is incorrect because deontology is concerned with the character of the act, not necessarily its ultimate consequences. So in the example of 53222 people or one person, you're directly weighing acts of murder against each other, so it would be appropriate to say that killing on average ~47,500 people is worse then killing 1 person. This is in contrast to the residual risks outlined above because the maybe inherent risk of doing something that slightly increases risks down the line isn't a violation of rights.
As for the second example of a person (let's say Person 7548986345) Presiding over a lot of cases, I think the above distinction solves the issue. Independently I think that someone getting a fair trial and a competent adjudicator is getting their rights fulfilled, even if they turn out to be innocent. Of course if someone later finds out they are innocent, they should be released.
"I'll turn this - it's highly plausible that accepting that your ideology mandates that you commit suicide could lead to even more rights violations. It may cause you to abandon that ideology, which means that you will violate rights or (even worse) become a utilitarian. It would mean that you fail and somehow cause someone else's rights to be violated. "
There is a distinction between what an ethical system says you should argue for and what it says you should do. I agree that it would hold that you shouldn't advise other deontologists to commit suicide. However, it seems it would have to hold that it would be good for one to commit suicide to reduce their risks of violating rights. The objection was also not specifically to suicide but more so to taking any action.
You next say "Perhaps you have adopted some ethical duties and killing yourself would violate those. It would take a pretty high level of certainty that you would violate someone's rights before that becomes an option. And I would say that one can probably have their rights violated if they are pressured into committing suicide. You might say that it makes no sense for someone to violate their own rights, but I would say that there's clearly a rights violation happening when someone is pressured to kill themselves, in that we should not be suicidal unless there's a good reason."
One cannot violate their own rights. No one is being pressured--it's just a question of the act.
Hitting pedestrians is a rights violation. Even if intent matters, it's conceivable that one would, in the heat of the moment, swerve away from hitting 5 pedestrians to hit only 1.
Your response to the witch was no response at all--it was a separate point.
Discounting percentages runs afoul of the views I'm criticizing. One who holds that you shouldn't imprison one to save the world certainly shouldn't hold you shouldn't imprison 1 to cause lots of guilty incarcerations.
I think a much better version of my argument is presented here.
"If one does not immediately commit suicide then it’s possible that they’ll violate rights. Lots of ways this could happen."
I'll turn this - it's highly plausible that accepting that your ideology mandates that you commit suicide could lead to even more rights violations. It may cause you to abandon that ideology, which means that you will violate rights or (even worse) become a utilitarian. It would mean that you fail and somehow cause someone else's rights to be violated. Perhaps you have adopted some ethical duties and killing yourself would violate those. It would take a pretty high level of certainty that you would violate someone's rights before that becomes an option. And I would say that one can probably have their rights violated if they are pressured into committing suicide. You might say that it makes no sense for someone to violate their own rights, but I would say that there's clearly a rights violation happening when someone is pressured to kill themselves, in that we should not be suicidal unless there's a good reason.
As for the specific examples - There's a 0% chance I become a serial killer, so I'm not worried about that.
Hitting pedestrians is bad, but doing it on accident isn't an infinite rights violation. I won't become a serial killer, so not going to do it intentionally.
Something horrific in a fit of rage - certainly possible,, though not probable enough to overcome the rights violations of killing myself or changing my mind after entertaining the thought.
As for the Witch, giving in to Pascal's wager is a rights violation.
Additionally, I think that your denouncement of discounting percentages is incorrect because deontology is concerned with the character of the act, not necessarily its ultimate consequences. So in the example of 53222 people or one person, you're directly weighing acts of murder against each other, so it would be appropriate to say that killing on average ~47,500 people is worse then killing 1 person. This is in contrast to the residual risks outlined above because the maybe inherent risk of doing something that slightly increases risks down the line isn't a violation of rights.
As for the second example of a person (let's say Person 7548986345) Presiding over a lot of cases, I think the above distinction solves the issue. Independently I think that someone getting a fair trial and a competent adjudicator is getting their rights fulfilled, even if they turn out to be innocent. Of course if someone later finds out they are innocent, they should be released.
"I'll turn this - it's highly plausible that accepting that your ideology mandates that you commit suicide could lead to even more rights violations. It may cause you to abandon that ideology, which means that you will violate rights or (even worse) become a utilitarian. It would mean that you fail and somehow cause someone else's rights to be violated. "
There is a distinction between what an ethical system says you should argue for and what it says you should do. I agree that it would hold that you shouldn't advise other deontologists to commit suicide. However, it seems it would have to hold that it would be good for one to commit suicide to reduce their risks of violating rights. The objection was also not specifically to suicide but more so to taking any action.
You next say "Perhaps you have adopted some ethical duties and killing yourself would violate those. It would take a pretty high level of certainty that you would violate someone's rights before that becomes an option. And I would say that one can probably have their rights violated if they are pressured into committing suicide. You might say that it makes no sense for someone to violate their own rights, but I would say that there's clearly a rights violation happening when someone is pressured to kill themselves, in that we should not be suicidal unless there's a good reason."
One cannot violate their own rights. No one is being pressured--it's just a question of the act.
Hitting pedestrians is a rights violation. Even if intent matters, it's conceivable that one would, in the heat of the moment, swerve away from hitting 5 pedestrians to hit only 1.
Your response to the witch was no response at all--it was a separate point.
Discounting percentages runs afoul of the views I'm criticizing. One who holds that you shouldn't imprison one to save the world certainly shouldn't hold you shouldn't imprison 1 to cause lots of guilty incarcerations.
I think a much better version of my argument is presented here.
https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/MacAskill_Mogensen_Paralysis_Argument.pdf
Best,
BB