Didnt he sling the food over the wall, to make the invading army think they were wasting their time??
"obviously"? it's not obvious to me... personally, i find it difficult to justify willing, purposely taking the man's life simply to divert an accident that is going to occur...
ok, i see what you're saying. by surrendering or fighting on they were guaranteed to lose. the third option at least gave them a chance (however slim) of winning. there's a similar story (was that one true?) about a king in malta facing an attack from the turks. they don't have a lot of ammo left for the cannons, so the king decides to start firing the cannons as the turks start landing on the shore, but still out of range of the cannons. the turkish leader thinks that if the defenders can be so wasteful with the ammo this early, that they must have heaps in reserve, so he decides to call of the attack. i can't recall if that's actually supposed to have happened or not. still, what's the application to the dilemma i gave? as i see it you're only two options are to divert the train or not divert it. which one would you choose? (i suppose a possible third option would be to throw yourself onto the tracks -- sacrificing your own life -- and hoping that would stop the train before it entered the tunnel, but for this example i said the train couldn't be stopped)
Jeezuz dude, I'm never leaving my kids alone with YOU!!! PS - if u could call up the man on his cellphone and explain that although he couldnt get outta the tunnel in time, he could save the kids by sacrificing his own life, whadya think he'd say? And if he's the kind of asshole who who would rather save his own worthless hide than the kiddies next door, would you REALLY have any probs pointing a train at him? So either way he NEEDS the train, or you are killing him with his own consent. Hence obviously. Any questions?
if this, if that, if i had a magic wand... if if if, ..... the point is, you can't get in touch with him. you can't defer the decision to anyone else, and you can't blame anyone else for your decision. there's one decision for you to make: divert the train or not? now, decide. do you want to murder one man to save 5 lives, or do you just let what is going to happen simply happen?
kill the man, obviously. The point stands. Unless he's an asswipe who deserves to die (or is one of Ernie Market's many alter ego), he would WANT you to let him have the front end at 50mph. Do the right thing dude or I'm never sending Jermaine and Michael round for a sleep over at your place again.
but why wappers? WHY is it the "right thing"? because it's what YOU like? the only reason we should accept the "right thing" is to kill the man because YOU like it? that's the best you can do? consider then, the following scenario: you're a surgeon and your specialty is organ transplants. you have five patients who are certain to die unless they get an organ transplant very soon. among your other patients is a suitable donor who is also in need of surgery. only this patient's condition isn't life threatening. it would be possible to make a surgical "slip" and take this patients life, thereby obtaining access to his organs to save the other five patients. would you, again, decide in favor of the majority and take the one man's life? if you wanted to remain consistent with your actions, it seems you'd have to.