4 ms·
Every policy has winners and losers. The best we can hope for is to maximize the benefits while minimizing the costs (and setting a floor for the losers if poss
by dc-programmer 5y ago
Every policy has winners and losers. The best we can hope for is to maximize the benefits while minimizing the costs (and setting a floor for the losers if possible). In that sense every policy can formulated using the popular conception of the trolley problem, but I’m not sure how useful that is
- low_tech_love 5y agoIt's probably not very useful, and I agree with you that most policies will have side effects (I kind of came to that conclusion after I posted it). I don't think the point here is to have any concrete/right answer, but as a thought exercise it is interesting. Thinking about it from this perspective made me become a bit less judgmental against those who think not pulling the lever is the right thing to do. In the end, both sides have their arguments (but I still think the pros far outweigh the cons).
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y agoI think this is what OP is getting at. Its a question of maximizing the number of saved persons vs saving the individual. Mandating vaccines is a case of choosing to maximize numbers over saving a person. You might say they are the same thing, but they are not. Mass vaccine administration is done in order to save as many lives as possible, as in to reach a high score, a number. The other, which is no mandate, but with optional vaccination, is provided in order to save the individual person, not necessarily to reach a high score number. And that is to me inherently what the ethics of the trolley problem was about. Given the option, do you treat people like numbers or do you treat them as individuals?