Consequentialism covers all morality that's based in the outcomes of actions. Utilitarianism is the kind of consequentialism focused on maximizing happiness. Deontology is rules-based morality.
I think hypotheticals can be useful as long as the example actually is universifiable. In the trolley problem, the real question is "Is it okay to directly cause a bad thing to happen if it will prevent a worse thing (which you did not directly cause) from happening" which is IMO a worthwhile question to ask whose answer is applicable to many different scenarios. I think it's possible to misapply a hypothetical, since the scenarios might not actually be comparable, but if they are, I think we should apply our principles consistently, and having hypotheticals helps us do that.
No, it makes sense in the context it was made for, which is illustrating the difference between deontology and consequentialism.
deleted by creator
Consequentialism covers all morality that's based in the outcomes of actions. Utilitarianism is the kind of consequentialism focused on maximizing happiness. Deontology is rules-based morality.
I think hypotheticals can be useful as long as the example actually is universifiable. In the trolley problem, the real question is "Is it okay to directly cause a bad thing to happen if it will prevent a worse thing (which you did not directly cause) from happening" which is IMO a worthwhile question to ask whose answer is applicable to many different scenarios. I think it's possible to misapply a hypothetical, since the scenarios might not actually be comparable, but if they are, I think we should apply our principles consistently, and having hypotheticals helps us do that.
deleted by creator
Oh shit, I took it literally. I thought I was teaching philosophy but I guess I've just been murdering people this whole time.
deleted by creator