(May 2, 2012 at 12:26 am)Drich Wrote: What is interesting is how you have justified the murder of 4 to save 100 or how you would be a willing partisipant in the murder of 100 to save 4. This is what happens when your version of righteousness is based on the morality of your peers. All any of them has to do is rephrase the act of murder by saying you will save one group or the other, and you would just slaughter the other group for whatever trivial reason you have created for yourself.
Except, failing to save someone is not the same as murder.
(May 2, 2012 at 12:26 am)Drich Wrote: So in conclusion as i have said 3 times now; I would not play this game. That means whom ever was looking for my partisipation in the murder of one group or another would have to kill both, and let all of the blood fall of their own hands.
That shows a distinct lack of moral character. Obviously, you are not held accountable for death of the 100, the 4 or the 104. Not saving anyone is not the wrong thing to do, but it is also not the right thing to do - it is amoral. Its your cowardice to act that is immoral.
