Immiment Death Question

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? By NOT taking any action I'm not responsible for the outcome of the situation either way. By Flipping the switch I'm responsible for PERSONALLY MURDERING ONE PERSON.

It's the consideration of who they are that's the issue. If you think, "Oh, well, they're bad people, so they should go," you're taking the law into your own hands and executing them because of their past.

If you throw the switch and doom the one guy, it's because you think, "I'm sorry, but I'm trying to save five people, here," you're weighing the consequences and trying to do the most good.

Vigilante justice is illegal. Killing a guy just because he was really bad and the law hadn't yet gotten him is still murder.

The issue here is with saving lives. If you're only consideration is doing the most good, your actions aren't morally reprehensible. If, however, you consider who those people are, personally deem them worthy to die, and then let that happen, you're no longer trying to do the most good; you're trying to do the least evil. You're taking it upon yourself to kill someone instead of save them, and that's committing an evil act.

EDIT (ninja'd):

However, the idea of weighing the value of human beings one against the other is not only philosophically objectionable but morally repugnant.

So why did you suggest that you'd entertain doing just that were you given the choice?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com