What do you make of the composition-based argument for this conclusion? Like, it seems really obvious that pressing a button which reduces Immanuel's risk of death from 5/6 to 1/6 is worth doing. This is what Immanuel would rationally want you to do, and what Immanuel's family would beg you to do.
Gotta ask the obvious questions, since I think Deontologist about as well as I think Bat:
(1) Same reasoning with 1000 suitcases, or does it exceed your threshold? Is your threshold the same with suitcases as with visible individuals?
(2) What moral status do you assign to the consequentialist who pushes the button? "Murderer"?
(3) Suppose the button had already been in "switch" setting, and a short time ago, in a bout of homicidal rage, you'd shut it off so that more people would die. Now, you've regained your moral senses. Can/should/must you switch now?
(4) Change (3) to "you've accidentally bumped the button, which turned off the 'switch' setting".
What do you make of the composition-based argument for this conclusion? Like, it seems really obvious that pressing a button which reduces Immanuel's risk of death from 5/6 to 1/6 is worth doing. This is what Immanuel would rationally want you to do, and what Immanuel's family would beg you to do.
Gotta ask the obvious questions, since I think Deontologist about as well as I think Bat:
(1) Same reasoning with 1000 suitcases, or does it exceed your threshold? Is your threshold the same with suitcases as with visible individuals?
(2) What moral status do you assign to the consequentialist who pushes the button? "Murderer"?
(3) Suppose the button had already been in "switch" setting, and a short time ago, in a bout of homicidal rage, you'd shut it off so that more people would die. Now, you've regained your moral senses. Can/should/must you switch now?
(4) Change (3) to "you've accidentally bumped the button, which turned off the 'switch' setting".