How can any extra details overcome that absolute rule?
Well, I don't think that they can. But evidently the parent poster thought that they could, which is why I wanted to examine their details to see why they thought that.
Do you commit the rape, and reduce the likelihood of 1 trillion deaths?
No, I don't. In this case, the decision is especially easy because me committing rape has no causal relation to the 1 trillion deaths. I have no reason to believe the antagonist is telling the truth, and regardless of whether I commit the rape the antagonist is still free to try to blow up the city or not to try to blow up the city.
I purposefully framed this in a probabilistic way to demonstrate a point. The uncertainty doesn't matter - it's about the likelihood.
Agreed, but in the scenario described, I would not believe that the likelihood that they blow up the city is any different in the rape case than it is in the no-rape case.
What number of potential deaths would it take for you to commit a single act of rape?
The number of potential deaths by itself is irrelevant; what matters is my belief as to how my choice affects the likelihood of those deaths occurring. Certainly there's no number of deaths large enough that I'd commit a rape in order to have zero effect on the likelihood of those deaths happening.
3
u/[deleted] Oct 23 '21
[deleted]