• CarbonIceDragon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Arguably these are different amounts of bad even before considering this: We generally consider existing preferable to non-existence to some extent when suffering isnt taken into account, consider that if you murder someone quickly and painlessly in their sleep without waking them, they dont really themselves suffer from it, but people will still find you to be a murderer, and would object to the idea that you might do it to them. In the top example, killing the people actually kills them, but in the lower example, it arguably doesnt, because the experiences of the people involved never actually cease, therefore, the lower path seems to me to be preferable because you supposedly get equivalent amounts of “suffering”, but different amounts of time that people spend in non-existence.

    • Johanno@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      Morally speaking people could argue that torturing immortal people is worse.

      However legally speaking to you don’t kill them and therefore the immortals are preferred.

        • Johanno@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That would mean you did it on purpose. But you didn’t power the trolley. You “accidentally” flipped the switch… And left. Since you can’t do more.

        • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Though I do wonder whether a sufficiently good lawyer could argue that it’s not attempted murder if you knew they were immortal