this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
543 points (98.2% liked)

Political Memes

9954 readers
835 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ripped from reddit

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't remember where exactly, but I've encountered an hybrid approach that balances utilitarianism with deontology. It goes something like this:

  1. Generally do what brings the most utility. But...
  2. People have "deontological protections" - basic human rights that you are not allowed to infringe upon even if it is for the greater good. But...
  3. One's deontological protections can be bypassed if said "greater good" is solving a mess they are responsible for.

Take, for example, the case of a mass shooter. Utilitarianism says you are allowed to take them down if that's the only way to save their victims. Naive deontology says you are not allowed to kill whatsoever. The approach I've just presented says that we can go with utilitarianism in this case - but only because the shooter is one responsible for this mess so it's okay to harm them for the greater good.

Note that it does not say it's okay to kill them otherwise. If you manage to capture them, an other lives are no longer in risk, both deontology and utilitarianism will agree you are not allowed to kill them.

Let's go back to the classic Trolley Problem. Is the person tied to the second track responsible for the situation? No - they are a victim. They are not stripped from their deontological protection, and therefore you are not allowed to sacrifice them in order to save the other five.


Back to the case in hand. We need to ask the following questions:

  • Does the suffering of the employees outweigh the life of the CEO?
  • Does the death of the CEO stop the suffering of the employees?
  • Is the CEO responsible for the suffering of the employees?

If the answer to all three questions is "yes" - then what's the problem?

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

What about decreasing the harm of the employees by suing him or reporting him to the state labor board or even just kicking his ass or any combination thereof. The above seems overly simplistic.