But I don't think that you understand what I mean. As far as I can understand, you interpret it as a 'the ends justify the means', but I actually mean it as a deterrent strategy. Having a lot of abortions does not actually deter unwanted pregnancies, indeed, it might do less to deincentivize them. But if migrants know that they won't be picked up by human smuggler helpers when they traverse the Mediterranean on leaky boats, they will stop coming, and that will end the problem.
Whether abortions are justified to prevent future suffering depends on your view of the moral status of the embryo/fetus.
In medical emergencies triage may require you to allow people to die to save the most lives possible with the resources on hand. The only difference is active/passive involvement.
But if you believe the solution to the trolly problem is to actively change tracks, then you could consider AoV's solution humane if it causes less total deaths.
That's doing your best to save as many lives as you can without shooting anyone. It's not the same as murder.
if you believe the solution to the trolly problem is to actively change tracks
Nobody would kidnap a bunch of people and engineer that trolly scenario with "ethics experiments" goals in mind. It'd just be a game for his amusement/ego trip. It'd be just about sadism, regardless of how he justifies it. Such a person is going to continue to play with the survivors until he tortures and rapes the last one to death. Everyone in the tracks and the person at the button is going to die. The solution to any actual trolly problem that could exist in real life is not to engage with the sadism of whoever put everyone in that situation by playing along. Every death will be on the lunatic, not you.
I wouldn't say that protecting your border is murder. But let's assume that it is. I'm merely remarking on the irony that something that is supposedly 'inhumane' would lead to the most humane outcome, namely invaders not coming and not dying in leaky vessels.
My analogy did have a correspondence with the previous post:
Shooting immigrants on sight to stop them the inhumane suffering of dying while trying to cross illegally is like killing the unborn to free them from all inhumane future sufferings.
It's the same logic of justifying murder out of "concern" for the victim.
That's like defending abortion as humane because it avoids all the child's future sufferings.
Pretty sure babies don't come from another country and consciously choose to invade someone's womb.
You can't deter babies from existing by making examples of them, but societal leeches on the other hand...
Unborn babies aren't making a decision to invade someone else's land.
I do defend abortion with this logic though.
Upvoted for challenging a popular view.
But I don't think that you understand what I mean. As far as I can understand, you interpret it as a 'the ends justify the means', but I actually mean it as a deterrent strategy. Having a lot of abortions does not actually deter unwanted pregnancies, indeed, it might do less to deincentivize them. But if migrants know that they won't be picked up by human smuggler helpers when they traverse the Mediterranean on leaky boats, they will stop coming, and that will end the problem.
Whether abortions are justified to prevent future suffering depends on your view of the moral status of the embryo/fetus.
I'm just against calling murder humane.
In medical emergencies triage may require you to allow people to die to save the most lives possible with the resources on hand. The only difference is active/passive involvement.
But if you believe the solution to the trolly problem is to actively change tracks, then you could consider AoV's solution humane if it causes less total deaths.
That's doing your best to save as many lives as you can without shooting anyone. It's not the same as murder.
Nobody would kidnap a bunch of people and engineer that trolly scenario with "ethics experiments" goals in mind. It'd just be a game for his amusement/ego trip. It'd be just about sadism, regardless of how he justifies it. Such a person is going to continue to play with the survivors until he tortures and rapes the last one to death. Everyone in the tracks and the person at the button is going to die. The solution to any actual trolly problem that could exist in real life is not to engage with the sadism of whoever put everyone in that situation by playing along. Every death will be on the lunatic, not you.
I wouldn't say that protecting your border is murder. But let's assume that it is. I'm merely remarking on the irony that something that is supposedly 'inhumane' would lead to the most humane outcome, namely invaders not coming and not dying in leaky vessels.
That wordplay, man.
There's nothing merciful or compassionate about shooting unarmed people. It is not humane.
You are purposely mixing things together.
That's the point of analogies.
Your analogy must contain a correspondence or partial similarity, "yours" had none and thus isn't an analogy.
My analogy did have a correspondence with the previous post:
Shooting immigrants on sight to stop them the inhumane suffering of dying while trying to cross illegally is like killing the unborn to free them from all inhumane future sufferings.
It's the same logic of justifying murder out of "concern" for the victim.