So if someone gives you a gun and tells you to shoot 10 people in the head or they will kill 20 people, you are saying that it’s a moral obligation to shoot the 10 people in the head?
You are morally responsible in some degree for 20 people dying rather than 10. Though, in that example, I seriously doubt that most people would think the moral choice is to shoot the 10 people. Probably because we instinctually know that wouldn’t be the end of it or none of the deaths seem inevitable.
Yes, you can. It’s just a trolley problem, and you’re choosing to not flip the switch. It’s still your choice and has consequences.
So if someone gives you a gun and tells you to shoot 10 people in the head or they will kill 20 people, you are saying that it’s a moral obligation to shoot the 10 people in the head?
Have you literally never heard of the trolley problem?
This is what it looks like when the cartoons are replaced with humans.
You are morally responsible in some degree for 20 people dying rather than 10. Though, in that example, I seriously doubt that most people would think the moral choice is to shoot the 10 people. Probably because we instinctually know that wouldn’t be the end of it or none of the deaths seem inevitable.
Do you mean temporarily choosing the lesser evil is not a solution?
Only if there’s solution you can bring about that isn’t one of the evils.
They are not equivalent situations. More like:
Person A promises to kill 10 people. Person B promises to kill 20 people.
Only one of them will do it, and you choose who. If you refuse to choose, person B will do it. What do you do?
Non sequitur size: belief-beggaring