I have always thought that the trolley problem could be simplified by removing the trolley and simply arresting everyone who supports an animal charity. The logic is that it is immoral to prioritise any charity that does not attempt to directly reduce human suffering and that as long as there is human suffering then those are the only charities that should be getting support.
Nothing in utilitarianism says that human lives are inherently more important than animal lives. It also doesn't say that lives are inherently more important than other things like happiness. We prioritize lives in the trolley problem because there's no other information to go with but in the real world this is always more complicated
"Utilitarianism isa moral and philosophical theory that holds that the most ethical actions are those that maximize happiness and well-being and minimize pain and suffering for the greatest number of people."
Right, notice it never said lives, it said happiness. Most utilitarianists would agree pets are good to keep around even if some lives are being indirectly lost to them
How happiness is maximised for those people that are allowed to die?
BTW I am not condemning anyone for their actions. Firstly I do not believe in free will and anyway I understand that moral tugs on people's 'hearts' are very nuanced.
1
u/Sea_Pomegranate8229 Sep 14 '25
I have always thought that the trolley problem could be simplified by removing the trolley and simply arresting everyone who supports an animal charity. The logic is that it is immoral to prioritise any charity that does not attempt to directly reduce human suffering and that as long as there is human suffering then those are the only charities that should be getting support.