Which is fine too ; I was just laying out that I would hold no personal ill will to anyone that has taken the ideal that killing is always wrong - period.

But I am curious now: How is the letting of people die in the first scenario more preferable to killing the one - but the killing the one to save one in this last scenario is the preferable option?

Is it merely that it's now your family in the equation, and you have a separate immeasurable moral duty to your family that outweighs the moral duty you have to strangers... or is that the life you are taking now is the life of the man that is directly responsible of the situation at hand?

In which case - take the first train scenario and picture that the man on the second track is the man that tied everyone (including himself) up... is flipping the switch then the preferable choice?