Inaction can be seen as a decision just the same

or person's

But it's not your action leading to that death

it can be seen as a decision, but it's a decision to not to intervein

But you had the ability to change the outcome

So your not as responsible then if you took an action which led to a death

and chose to do nothing

i think they explored this well in the witcher

whichh game?

https://www.google.com/search?channel=crow2&client=firefox-b-d&q=the+witcherhttps://www.google.com/search?channel=crow2&client=firefox-b-d&q=the+witcher

or do you mean the books

the books

dangit

If changed to, "you save 6, but theres a 50% chance the 1 gets free himself regardless" would you do it?

https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/The_Lesser_Evil

No

still no

i agree with lizard

So youd kill 6 even though the 1 may have survived anyway

however, if i was put in the position i think i would have an ape reaction and do it

why is an ape reaction saving the most people

i haven't killed anyone

The 1 person shouldn't have to risk death to save others

just wondering

@Harrybaxter♫♫♩♫‿◦ justification of numbers of lives

yeah

number of lives is the more important part of the problem, in my opinion

i don't see it that way

but i would default to it likely

if it was a pressure moment

i think there's something to be said for not picking when presented with the lesser of evils

choosing to not act is also fair, but i would save the highest number of people

<:wojak_shrug:586614697441361946>

and if people want to hate me for that, they can hate me, its still my choice

as we know, pure numbers don't make things right

well of course they dont

but i would agree when pressed

but you also cant make judgements on people you dont know

so it should default to something you can comprehend

being numbers

if put to the option like you say, i would do it