Great reading! I'm not a statist but I'll try to play devil's advocate.
Don't you think we could state (it's still a simplification, but bear with me) that our moral judgements are based on both principles (deontological ethics) and consequences (consequentialism)? Maybe we determine good and bad through a heuristic process that takes into account both systems, making the answer "but it will be bad" not incompatible with logical claims.
Trolleyology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) is filled with examples where we cannot reasonably articulate the reasons why we make certain judgment calls. Maybe statists do need consequential arguments and anarchists are right to fall in their traps.
You know what Yogi Berra would say:“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
Obfuscation. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. It's really that simple!
The trolley problem is a bullshit trap. The person who COULD intervene did nothing to set up the scenario (and the scenario never occurs anyways). The person responsible is the person who ties people to the tracks and sends a trolley after them. Nobody else. Same as if person A points a gun at person B, what person B does is the responsibility of person A.
Possibly, but ideally in that case, if you asked someone a straightforward question like:
Then they would respond by saying something like:
And we could go from there. Unfortunately, what normally happens is a negative emotional reaction which makes communication very difficult.
I think your idea about using deontological ethics and consequentialism at different and appropriate times probably deserves a lot of consideration. I suppose in some ways, that is what comes naturally to people.
Thanks to the OP and to isacvale for your reply. It was interesting to look up and read through the Wikipedia of the Trolley Problem
While the problem is well known and has been debated at length for many years it's actually a very simple thought experiment that is used to justify doing something distasteful or evil.
Let me explain,
Voting IS the trolley problem on a massive scale. People are convinced that they must choose between two negative outcomes and if they don't choose and the worst outcome occurs then they are at fault for not choosing (voting).
This problem can be and has been modified many ways but is always about forcing you to choose.
The correct answer is, whether your actions are evil or good is determined by how you justify your actions not by the question.
I can and will justify my refusal to pull the lever (vote). You may be convinced that I'm allowing 5 people to die, I'm convinced that only fools who trust Government to protect them would stand on the track.
Thanks for refreshing my memory of this time honored argument.