There was meant to be an âall else equalâ clause in there (as usually goes without saying in these sorts of thought experiments) -- otherwise, as you say, the verdict wouldnât necessarily indicate underlying non-utilitarian concerns at all.
Perhaps easiest to imagine if you modify the thought experiment so that your psychology (memories, âmoral musclesâ, etc.) will be âresetâ after making the decision. Iâm talking about those who would insist that you still ought to save the one over the two even thenâno matter how the purely utilitarian considerations play out.
Yeah honestly I donât think there is a single true deontologist on Earth. To say anything is good or addresses the good, including deontology, one must define the âgoodâ aimed at.
I think personal/âdirect situations entail a slew of complicating factors that a utilitarian should consider. As a response to that uncertainty, it is often rational to lean on intuition. And, thus, it is bad to undermine that intuition habitually.
âDirectnessâ inherently means higher level of physical/âemotional involvement, different (likely closer to home) social landscape and stakes, etc. So constructing an âall else being equalâ scenario is impossible.
Related to initial deontologist point: when your average person expresses a âdirectness mattersâ view, it is very likely they are expressing concern for these considerations, rather than actually having a diehard deontologist view (even if they use language that suggests that).
There was meant to be an âall else equalâ clause in there (as usually goes without saying in these sorts of thought experiments) -- otherwise, as you say, the verdict wouldnât necessarily indicate underlying non-utilitarian concerns at all.
Perhaps easiest to imagine if you modify the thought experiment so that your psychology (memories, âmoral musclesâ, etc.) will be âresetâ after making the decision. Iâm talking about those who would insist that you still ought to save the one over the two even thenâno matter how the purely utilitarian considerations play out.
Yeah honestly I donât think there is a single true deontologist on Earth. To say anything is good or addresses the good, including deontology, one must define the âgoodâ aimed at.
I think personal/âdirect situations entail a slew of complicating factors that a utilitarian should consider. As a response to that uncertainty, it is often rational to lean on intuition. And, thus, it is bad to undermine that intuition habitually.
âDirectnessâ inherently means higher level of physical/âemotional involvement, different (likely closer to home) social landscape and stakes, etc. So constructing an âall else being equalâ scenario is impossible.
Related to initial deontologist point: when your average person expresses a âdirectness mattersâ view, it is very likely they are expressing concern for these considerations, rather than actually having a diehard deontologist view (even if they use language that suggests that).