> Is it worth killing n random people, for a uncalculated and unknowable chance of saving n+m lives in the future. The pool of people randomly selected to die have not volunteered or consented to be part of this project.
This reasoning renders any governmental policy change of any sort impermissible.
It isn't coherent to apply these forms of deontological ethics to state action - a random set of people will die with both state action and omission of action, I see no reason why not to pick the option with the smaller expected number of deaths.
But this is all besides my original point: this is a legitimate moral debate to have and the rhetoric used by the above commentator was entirely uncalled for.
This reasoning renders any governmental policy change of any sort impermissible.
It isn't coherent to apply these forms of deontological ethics to state action - a random set of people will die with both state action and omission of action, I see no reason why not to pick the option with the smaller expected number of deaths.
But this is all besides my original point: this is a legitimate moral debate to have and the rhetoric used by the above commentator was entirely uncalled for.