My problem with Unger...

I apologize in advance for this blog because I do not think that it is going to be arguing against Unger's theories as much as how he writes his book. I have been struggling to read this book thus far because Unger's style of writing bothers me in general. He has a way of leading the reader in a way that does not let anyone think for themself. In talking about a theory, he tends to mention that it is the correct way of thinking a number of times before he even discusses what the theory is. This bothered me from the start, but it became more of an issue for me in reading these two chapters for class today. I, like Kelly, had problems with how Unger saw Preservationist thinking in certain cases. It bothers me enough that Unger keeps telling me what I think when he's correct. However, when he spends pages talking about how I supposedly think and I do not agree with it, I find it nearly impossible to read. I agreed with Kelly in that no matter which case, the Heavy Skater or the the Switches and Skater, I felt that it is wrong to make the skater go in front of the trolley. Furthermore, I felt that even as a runner with 60 lives in danger and my foot as the only solution, someone is morally allowed to take my foot. Unger needs to find a case in which he does not play the number game and in which the same is at stake for all people involved. However, he does not provide such a case that causes Preservationists a large problem for the constraint against doing harm in this chapter. Furthermore, when he claims to find problems, he is not really speaking for my Preservationist intuitions.