Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Do the ends justify the means? The ABHORRENT Philosophy of Serenity" video.

Consequentialism fails at the first hurdle - knowing with certainty, that the consequences will play out as you believe that they will. The trolley problem reduces a nuanced problem to a binary choice that is frequently not that simple. I remember a guy who fell asleep while driving in Britain. His car went down an embankment, derailed a train, and caused multiple deaths. He received years in prison. Falling asleep at any other time would have had not consequences and carried no penalty. A consequentialist attitude to sentencing is as asinine as it is prevalent and unfair.
2
@biggerdoofus Totally missing the point. A different sentence for EXACTLY the same accidental action based upon the consequences is inconsistent and immoral. If you slip while walking and knock a child under a bus, does that deserve a prison sentence just because the consequence was horrific?
1
@biggerdoofus If the man had fallen asleep 100 further, there would be no trial, and no prison sentence. The exact same act doesn't become criminal simply because it has serious consequences. "failed to include any details that would make it the person's fault." Falling asleep need not be the person's fault. You think you're simply tired and the next thing people are dead.
1
@biggerdoofus I don't think things outside your control should be punished. I don't think accidents should be punished. Arguably, a driver has some control over their alertness levels, so it's not entirely accidental, and if there was no penalty, every careless driver would simply use it as an excuse, so yes, there should be a penalty, but that penalty should not change according to the severity of the consequences.
1
@biggerdoofus An interesting thought but wrong, and the two positions (punitive AND consequentialism) are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, I would suggest that they are close bed fellows.
1
@biggerdoofus The intellectual side of my brain that believes in determinism, does not believe in retribution period. The emotional side, want to hurt people who hurt me. As to your question, I'll admit, this is starting to reach the limits of my thinking capacity, but it seems to me that consequentialsts would, by definition likely want the punishment to fit the crime. When you talk about "the initial choice," I assume that you are talking about the criminal. But crime is merely a transgression of culturally defined rules, and may not even be consciously perpetrated. Every nation retains nonsensical medieval or theological laws that make no moral or social sense.
1