In his article "Comparing Harms," Alastair Norcross argues that
A) a consequentialist would say that it would be permissible to sacrifice a human life only if it saved a number of lives.
B) the consequentialist principle of "lives for convenience" shows that consequentialism is immoral.
C) our society frequently chooses to sacrifice lives for the convenience of the many.
D) there is no situation in which it would be morally permissible to sacrifice an innocent human life.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Norcross argues that our society frequently chooses to sacrifice lives for the convenience of the many, such as in the case of automobile accidents. This suggests that there are situations in which sacrificing an innocent human life is considered morally permissible. Option A is partially correct but does not fully capture Norcross's argument, as he does not limit sacrificial scenarios to only those that save a number of lives. Option B mischaracterizes the consequentialist principle of "lives for convenience" and does not reflect Norcross's argument. Option D is not supported by Norcross, as he believes that there are situations in which sacrificing innocent lives is morally permissible.

In His Article "Comparing Harms," Alastair Norcross Argues That