You think they'd notice the strangle marks, the unnecessary surgery and the fact that he's missing 5 vital organs. And then there's the surveillance cameras they likely use to keep mal praxis suits away.

Ahem. 2 lives are equal in the eyes of the law because law is blind and meant to work in all circumstances. But given a choice between using train with criminal or using train with Einstein, well, basically criminal burgers.

I don't know how many people are worth an Einstein. Or what kind of people.

Maybe in the eyes of the law. No, wait, law says if you choose, choose the murderer over the police officer, over the victim, basically if you hold a gun at someone you just moved yourself to the top of the list.

Also, during a high-risk arrest, raid, etc, I strongly recommend you don't even POINT a gun at an officer or hostage. You might just forfeit your right to live.

Then who? Religion? How do I put this so I don't get dragged into a religion dispute?

I don't. I don't have to.

Personal morality, maybe. Of a few select people. Not that I know any. Really. I don't know anyone who would choose a stranger over an important to them person.

But you do, under many legislations. Which, to me, is silly, if well intended. I really, REALLY don't want the first person to see something to immediately intervene with deadly force.

This is why I disagree with the duty of all drivers to know and apply first aid in a car crash. I might have something broken and dolt #32184 thinks they should raise my feet. Keep off and call an ambulance. I'd bet a large sum of money not 50% of drivers that had mandatory courses could make a good decision.

I agree with the rest though.

This is not only legal, but frankly, if it weren't, I couldn't care less.

In this situation, all other moral and legal directives have been rescinded.

Because legality is not an invention, but a derivative. Law, when designed the first time, embedded local law, local custom, morality, religion, common practice, as well as ideals, wishes, etc.

This became the basis of law, it's not a coincidence that most of the commandments were translated into law. And it's not coincidence that ideals were translated into first books for several people (If you think first books were given, I'm cool with that, I won't try to convince you, don't try to convince me).

Law is basically what people have accepted to be correct and moral. Some of the laws have since evolved and were expanded to include other activities for which no morals were defined, or were adjusted for new morality.

Additionally, I'm in Romania and, like most of Europe and some of the world we base out system in Roman Law. This works quite differently from Common law in US and UK. Yet I made reference to it because Common law is directly adjusted by historic references to other cases. These cases are decided by a jury in most cases (judge can overrule) and the decision of people is basically a reflection of morality.

Our law system is similar in form, but since it's not obtained directly by morality of the many, I skipped it.

The reason why I brought up law is because in most cases law is nothing but pre-made decision, since one, as a citizen, is expected to adjust his actions according to it, bypassing personal morality or upbringing. IMO it's one of they few arguments when it comes to opinions on morality. Having the same direction as the law means in most cases having the direction of the masses.

Agreed. Perhaps with less strong words, but yes, if anyone would look me in the eye and say that "yes I let them die. What, move a muscle and save them?" I'd have the urge to strangle.

And detachment is not what I find infuriating. What I find infuriating is that someone values a concept like personal content with oneself rank above 4 lives.

So, what, now that I'm dead along with my family you can sleep soundly at night? Who equates life to feelings? Is that what's keeping people from killing each other? A good night sleep?

If he's good. :)