If Paul pushes someone in front of a trolley because it will kill someone and Mary pushes someone in front of a trolley because it will save two people from getting hit, then Paul is not and EA and Mary is.
Is this a counter example to the ‘deontological framing’ assertion?
I’m not sure I got your point… do you mean counter example because it proves it is not deontological or because it proves it is not desirable to be deontological? If you look only the consequences paul and mary actions are the same, they kill one to save two.
I think it is interesting to think about the practical consequences for the movement of the different approaches. If what matters is only extension it would justify to get adherents no matter what (i don’t know, like using strong images, manipulated data...), on the other hand, from an intensional point of view you want adherents that get the point reasonably enough to push it further.
Maybe we also need a distinction between adherents that are only interested in knowing good charities to donate to, and those who are willing to push the ideas further
Sorry, I wrote that comment carelessly! I wanted to look into whether the framing is actually deontological.
In your example, they both had the same ends (donating to AMF) and different means (having malaria as a kid or trying to be effective). If I’m correct, you were saying that because it was the means that distinguished the two cases, deontological framing was being used.
But in my example, they both had the same means (pushing someone in front of a trolley) to get to different ends (‘saving’ one life or killing one life). And in this case, it was the ends that distinguished them. So I was wondering if deontological framing was actually being used.
If Paul pushes someone in front of a trolley because it will kill someone and Mary pushes someone in front of a trolley because it will save two people from getting hit, then Paul is not and EA and Mary is.
Is this a counter example to the ‘deontological framing’ assertion?
I’m not sure I got your point… do you mean counter example because it proves it is not deontological or because it proves it is not desirable to be deontological? If you look only the consequences paul and mary actions are the same, they kill one to save two. I think it is interesting to think about the practical consequences for the movement of the different approaches. If what matters is only extension it would justify to get adherents no matter what (i don’t know, like using strong images, manipulated data...), on the other hand, from an intensional point of view you want adherents that get the point reasonably enough to push it further. Maybe we also need a distinction between adherents that are only interested in knowing good charities to donate to, and those who are willing to push the ideas further
Sorry, I wrote that comment carelessly! I wanted to look into whether the framing is actually deontological.
In your example, they both had the same ends (donating to AMF) and different means (having malaria as a kid or trying to be effective). If I’m correct, you were saying that because it was the means that distinguished the two cases, deontological framing was being used.
But in my example, they both had the same means (pushing someone in front of a trolley) to get to different ends (‘saving’ one life or killing one life). And in this case, it was the ends that distinguished them. So I was wondering if deontological framing was actually being used.