This is an unfortunate circumstance. In these kinds of situations, where everything is equal, I imagine standing at a railroad switch. The train is coming full-speed. If left alone the train will hit two people and kill them, however I have the power to throw the switch and divert the train so that it shifts course to kill one person.

In this situation I would withhold action. Why? While this is a terrible thing, I am not the one who put either party in this situation. The train killing two people is the result of events that I am not involved in.

While it may seem logical to divert the train, let's back up and think about what's going on here. If I do not touch the controls, and the train goes about its course, I have done nothing wrong. I have neither helped nor hindered any affair here. I am therefore in a state of moral neutrality.

What if I flip the switch? Sure I am saving the lives of two people, but I am also actively condemning the life of one person. Now I have shifted from a realm of moral neutrality into a realm of moral responsibility. Sure some good comes out of saving the two lives, but in the end I am making a conscious decision to murder the one (Murder - unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being [I am not breaking any moral law by not acting, and to act would mean the death of an innocent, therefore moving it into the realm of murder]).

As we well know, rights do not cover wrongs. We are not justified in raping a person if we have sufficient time serving at the soup kitchen to overcome it in our minds. It is the same, then, in this situation. My saving of the two lives does not permit me in any way to take the life of another. It's a sad twist of fate, but nevertheless I would not, indeed I should not, throw the switch and make myself into a murderer.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.