Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9191371" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Perhaps a good example of the two (heavily simplified) schools of thought. But, also... an example that falls into a rather common problem. It is a presented as a binary. And this is where things get hazy. Because whenever you propose that there are only two answers, you are generally wrong. Take the classic trolley problem. You can kill five people, or you can kill one person. That is the only choice you are given. But, present a table of DnD players with a trolley problem, then they are going to start discussing solutions C through N. Because those options are real, actual options. I, personally, would say both Consequentialist and Deontologicalist from your simplified versions miss the point. It is not only the consequences that matter in morality, but also intent. You did not commit a good act by trying to kill someone, only to accidentally save their life. It is also equally absurd to take the position that only actions which could be taken under any context can be moral, because then something like taking pictures (which can be done immorally) is never a moral action, because it cannot be done in all ways, at any time, for any reason.</blockquote>