6 ms·
> Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous. You failed to do that: You didn’t address the a
by zmgsabst 4y ago
> Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous.
You failed to do that:
You didn’t address the agency problem where the 15 chose to engage in risky behavior while that 1 was coerced into dying — and ignoring the role of agency in the Trolley Problem is amateur hour. The helmets didn’t kill anyone, their following choices while wearing helmets did; which is in contrast to mandating no helmet, that is directly responsible for a death.
What you did was make a ridiculous argument that ignored the crux of the issue and pretend that the other person was wrong.
- whimsicalism 4y agoThey were not coerced into dying. I prefer fewer people dying personally, your mileage might vary. All I can say is I am glad that the actual people making decisions seem to also prefer fewer people dying over non-coercion.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago>They were not coerced into dying Despite this bare denial, I believe "coerced into dying" to be an accurate description of someone coerced into not wearing a helmet dying of head injuries from an unavoidable accident sorry, that's not a coercion I'm willing to make. First, do no harm. Come back when you've tried safer ways to reduce risky behavior.