I think you mean “consequentialism”, not “utilitarianism”. And only some flavors of deontology make that strong a distinction between action and inaction. There are plenty of deontologists who’ll tell you that standing still and letting 5⁄6 of a group die when you could change it to 1⁄6 is a wrong action.
The trolly problem is useful in examining one’s intuitions, but doesn’t tell us much about reasoned philosophy.
I think you mean “consequentialism”, not “utilitarianism”. And only some flavors of deontology make that strong a distinction between action and inaction. There are plenty of deontologists who’ll tell you that standing still and letting 5⁄6 of a group die when you could change it to 1⁄6 is a wrong action.
The trolly problem is useful in examining one’s intuitions, but doesn’t tell us much about reasoned philosophy.
Thanks. Those are good clarifications. I’ve integrated them into the post.