Quote:
|
Thus, the actual difference between these scenarios is... (dat da da daa): the responsibility for the one death. In case 1, if the man dies it is the fault of some random faceless party. In case 2, if the man dies then it is YOUR FAULT. Is there where the problem lies? I think so. I think that it must be, because its the only difference between these scenarios.
|
I would argue that there is another difference between the scenarios, and that being the principle of the matter involved. This scenario is not about placing blame. It's about upholding principle. The question at hand in case 2 is whether or not murder is justified when compared with the physical wellbeing of others.
Quote:
|
Maybe someone who is truely "strong" will shoulder this burden for the sake of the five, thus sacrificing his own sanity alongside the life of the one man. Afterall, what it boils down to is killing FIVE people instead of one, for your own sake. One should instead kill one man, save five, and live with it no matter the pain. Isn't that the most selfless path? Isn't that what the bigger man would do?
|
People can bear anything they have the intention to bear, though you can't fault them for having a weak(er) psyche compared to others. Regardless, this argument is moot when considering the issue of the principles involved.