>>428603>You can't see someone saying something, create your own example and then apply their logic for them, then call them wrongActually you can, it's an argument called "reductio ad absurdum". If you can use the exact same reasoning to justify something ridiculous, then that reasoning must be flawed. And by showing it's flawed for the ridiculous case, you've shown it's flawed for all cases.
In your case, it goes something like:
>In the classical trolley problem, doing nothing is moral, because doing nothing can never be not moralOkay, then not pulling the lever when there's five people on one track and no people on the other must be moral because doing nothing can never be not moral
>Okay, yes, it would not be moral to stand by and do nothing in the case where the other track is empty Well, if you can't say it's self-evidently moral to do nothing when one track is empty, then you don't get to say that it's self-evidently moral to do nothing when both tracks are full, or you'd be contradicting yourself.
The part you don't seem to be getting is that showing that the argument is unsound in some cases is showing that the argument is *unsound*. If the argument is unsound, then even when it leads to conclusions that don't look obviously wrong, it's *still unsound*.
