Maybe the best paper I’ve ever read is called People in Suitcases by Kacper Kowalczyk. I do not think there is anything plausible deontologists can say in reply. I thought I’d summarize the paper, and also discuss some results from related papers to show why there is no way out for the deontologist. Pack your bags deontologists, you have been defeated by suitcases.In the famous footbridge case, deontologists say that you should not push one person off a bridge to stop a train from killing two people. But now imagine that there are three people: A, B, and C. Each person is in a suitcase, so you don’t know who is where. Maybe A is on top of the track, maybe B is, and maybe C is. Now ask: should you push the person on top of the track off in order to save the two on the bottom of the track?The argument in favor: every single person is made better off in expectation. Everyone would rationally vote for you to push them, in light of the information they have. It would lower their risks of death from 2/3 to 1/3. All their families would want you to push too. Morality, if it means anything, means doing what’s best for everyone.The argument against: you shouldn’t kill people!Some deontologists go one way in this case, others go the other way. Kowalczyk’s paper shows why whichever way a deontologist goes, they’ll have huge problems.Let’s start with the view that says you should push the people in suitcases.https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-best-argument-against-deontology?triedRedirect=true
No, leave the event as is.That's dumb.
>>18480281save 0 people instead of one?
