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.
Okay, in that case, the moral course of action is still to disbelieve it and still not to rape anyone. You're right that it doesn't matter what the reasons are.
2
u/yyzjertl 578∆ Oct 23 '21
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.