Seeing a lot of “trolley problem” analysis of the hostage rescue in Gaza, i.e., the argument that you can’t kill 50x to save x.

The trolley problem is fatally flawed as a basis for moral decision making though because it posits clear and exhaustive consequences to flipping the switch or not, i.e., saving four vs one.

In reality the consequences are (a) unknowable because the future always has surprises; and (b) never all in, because the future persists indefinitely.

So if you decide you can murder one person to save four, the discussion cannot end with a simple, +3 = good! The implication of giving yourself license to murder in order to save people in greater numbers also becomes a precedent, and pretty soon, you’ll have people demanding you take an mRNA shot no matter how untested it is for “public health!”

People will posit all manner of justifications for horrors to balance the “greater good” books, so to speak. Seeing morality through the trolley problem lens (which many do) is destructive.

So you can’t look at numbers and figure it out like it’s 7th grade algebra.

*That’s neither to justify nor condemn the operation itself. I have no interest in that or the war generally.*