My extremely-basic intuition still has trouble distinguishing between utilitarianism and scope-sensitivity in the context of moral justification. Most examples of scope-sensitivity highlight how we should be aware of better actions to take where both options are good (such as the birds and oil spill example) but don't explain the concept in terms of a "greater good" approach (such as the trolley problem).
Does scope-sensitivity apply to situations where the inverse (harming the least amount of people) is in play? I'd love some guidance here.
I learned a lot from this post!
My extremely-basic intuition still has trouble distinguishing between utilitarianism and scope-sensitivity in the context of moral justification. Most examples of scope-sensitivity highlight how we should be aware of better actions to take where both options are good (such as the birds and oil spill example) but don't explain the concept in terms of a "greater good" approach (such as the trolley problem).
Does scope-sensitivity apply to situations where the inverse (harming the least amount of people) is in play? I'd love some guidance here.