That’s a valid solution to the trolley problem and not an uncommon one, minimizing deaths is virtuous even if it can’t be reduced to zero. Now you can reframe the question with additional variables and see if the answer still holds. Ie “what if the people below are felons and the individual above is a child?” Now the question is how merit or prospect affects the value of a life instead of considering quantity alone.
Someone who opts for inaction may argue that knowledge of the scenario in the first place doesn’t prescribe responsibility for this exact reason, there can be no end to the variability of the matter such that a moral decision can be determined and enacted in a reasonable frame of time. If you are going to terminate responsibility at a threshold of knowledge, why not at the beginning?
Whether or not either of these perspectives is correct is a discussion that can fill volumes.
That’s a valid solution to the trolley problem and not an uncommon one, minimizing deaths is virtuous even if it can’t be reduced to zero. Now you can reframe the question with additional variables and see if the answer still holds. Ie “what if the people below are felons and the individual above is a child?” Now the question is how merit or prospect affects the value of a life instead of considering quantity alone.
Someone who opts for inaction may argue that knowledge of the scenario in the first place doesn’t prescribe responsibility for this exact reason, there can be no end to the variability of the matter such that a moral decision can be determined and enacted in a reasonable frame of time. If you are going to terminate responsibility at a threshold of knowledge, why not at the beginning?
Whether or not either of these perspectives is correct is a discussion that can fill volumes.