• wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    It’s not bloodthirsty nor absolutist.

    If a tram sees a car negligently parked on the tracks, it should plow through it. The tram operator isn’t going to see if there’s a baby inside. Whoever parked the car on the tracks and left the baby inside is responsible for their own negligence, and also a psychopath.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      Explain why the baby deserves to die because of their negligent parent.

      Regardless of who we assign blame to, the important part is that if a train flips a car off its tracks, a baby in that car could die. So if we prioritize baby non-death, we can say that the train shouldnt be violently flipping cars off its tracks

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I didn’t say they deserve to die. I only said their death is the parent’s responsibility for leaving them in a car parked on the tracks.

        If a parent leaves a baby in the woods, no one would be arguing about “maybe bears shouldn’t eat babies!” They would be saying “Maybe you shouldn’t leave your baby unattended in the woods!”

        Leave a baby in the woods, it dies. Leave a baby on the train tracks, it dies. In both cases, it’s the negligent parent’s fault. Not the bear’s or the train’s.

          • BiteSizedZeitGeist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            I like this “the street car operator will make a baby die if they have to push a blocking car out of the way” strawman you have here