Here's a classic thought experiment that pushes the watershed consequentialist non-consequentialist divide:
You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making ends meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth $15,000 for free if you will falsely report to the government that the dealership donated a van worth $30,000. You really need the van and it will give you an opportunity to make the children happy. Do you agree to take the van?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I wouldn't agree to take the van because even though both you and the dealership will benefit from you lying to the government, in the end far worse consequences may occur if the government finds out that you falsely reported to them. If you were discovered, you would lose much more through the consequences imposed upon you by the government than if you were to refuse the van and have no net gain or loss.
Post a Comment