True, it’s a misapplication of the original thought experiment.
But it also kind of lays bare the consequences of choosing “the moral high ground” over an outcomes-based approach to morality. And I think that is still a useful thing.
I just don’t think it’s useful. Trying to argue against a non consequentialist ethical position with consequences is like beating your head against the wall. It’s just an endless circular argument.
Sometimes people ignore consequences because they simply haven’t thought through the consequences. That’s a very normal human thing. Laying it out this way can persuade some people.
Some people might even become consequentialist when shown the consequences they hadn’t fully considered before.
True, it’s a misapplication of the original thought experiment.
But it also kind of lays bare the consequences of choosing “the moral high ground” over an outcomes-based approach to morality. And I think that is still a useful thing.
I just don’t think it’s useful. Trying to argue against a non consequentialist ethical position with consequences is like beating your head against the wall. It’s just an endless circular argument.
Sometimes people ignore consequences because they simply haven’t thought through the consequences. That’s a very normal human thing. Laying it out this way can persuade some people.
Some people might even become consequentialist when shown the consequences they hadn’t fully considered before.