good or evil: the same for everyone?

[cometbah]

1.

In you scenario, you are in a situation where you can either be responsible for 1 death or 2 deaths and responsibility is the key here. So, choose to kill the least in this sense.

If I understand correctly (and I may not, as I did not read all posts), You have previously established that 'killing is always bad', and that 'the consequence does not justify the means'.

So
If subjects are willing to gamble then choose
Else if choosing is killing then don't choose
Else choose.

If subjects are willing to gamble then choose
It cannot be established that subjects are willing to gamble, because I know nothing about the subjects other than that they desire to live.
So I go to:

Else if choosing is killing then don't choose
How do I decide whether choosing is killing? (define 'killing'?)

[OldTrees]

1.

In you scenario, you are in a situation where you can either be responsible for 1 death or 2 deaths and responsibility is the key here. So, choose to kill the least in this sense.

If I understand correctly (and I may not, as I did not read all posts), You have previously established that 'killing is always bad', and that 'the consequence does not justify the means'.

So
If subjects are willing to gamble then choose
Else if choosing is killing then don't choose
Else choose.

If subjects are willing to gamble then choose
It cannot be established that subjects are willing to gamble, because I know nothing about the subjects other than that they desire to live.
So I go to:

Else if choosing is killing then don't choose
How do I decide whether choosing is killing? (define 'killing'?)

Choosing is not killing if there is another free will before the action and that free will needs to act in order to cause the death.

Situation 1:
You choose and push a button causing a machine to kill them.
Situation 2:
You choose and push a button that would cause a machine to kill them if Bob(unmentioned person) does not flicks a lever.
Situation 3:
You choose and Bob(unmentioned person) pushes a button causing a machine to kill them

So Situations 1 and 2 are killing while situation 3 is not killing.

[northcity4]

1.

In you scenario, you are in a situation where you can either be responsible for 1 death or 2 deaths and responsibility is the key here. So, choose to kill the least in this sense.

If I understand correctly (and I may not, as I did not read all posts), You have previously established that 'killing is always bad', and that 'the consequence does not justify the means'.

So
If subjects are willing to gamble then choose
Else if choosing is killing then don't choose
Else choose.

If subjects are willing to gamble then choose
It cannot be established that subjects are willing to gamble, because I know nothing about the subjects other than that they desire to live.
So I go to:

Else if choosing is killing then don't choose
How do I decide whether choosing is killing? (define 'killing'?)

Murder is always bad. Why not kill someone to save 5 others? Philosophical rights include positive and negative rights and you infringe on those.
Killing is...for sake of simplicity, moral giving of death.
So, in your example, I am sure the third guy doesn't want to make this decision and knows he must choose or both will die. He is not 'murdering' the people is how I should say it.

[cometbah]

Choosing is not killing if there is another free will before the action and that free will needs to act in order to cause the death.

Situation 1:
You choose and push a button causing a machine to kill them.
Situation 2:
You choose and push a button that would cause a machine to kill them if Bob(unmentioned person) does not flicks a lever.
Situation 3:
You choose and Bob(unmentioned person) pushes a button causing a machine to kill them

So Situations 1 and 2 are killing while situation 3 is not killing.

Would it be morally permissible to give Bob an order to kill in Situation 4 (described below)? If so, would it be morally optimal for the original situation (choose=1 death; not-choose=2 deaths)?

Situation 4:
Bob is an agent of free will. You have observed throughtout many past experiments that Bob seems to almost surely always follow your orders (probability of 1 with a very high degree of confidence).

[cometbah]

Murder is always bad. Why not kill someone to save 5 others? Philosophical rights include positive and negative rights and you infringe on those.
Killing is...for sake of simplicity, moral giving of death.
So, in your example, I am sure the third guy doesn't want to make this decision and knows he must choose or both will die. He is not 'murdering' the people is how I should say it.

To murder is to kill with intent.

What the killer hopes to accomplish by killing with intent is not relevant (for Kant).

[OldTrees]

Choosing is not killing if there is another free will before the action and that free will needs to act in order to cause the death.

Situation 1:
You choose and push a button causing a machine to kill them.
Situation 2:
You choose and push a button that would cause a machine to kill them if Bob(unmentioned person) does not flicks a lever.
Situation 3:
You choose and Bob(unmentioned person) pushes a button causing a machine to kill them

So Situations 1 and 2 are killing while situation 3 is not killing.

Would it be morally permissible to give Bob an order to kill in Situation 4 (described below)? If so, would it be morally optimal for the original situation (choose=1 death; not-choose=2 deaths)?

Situation 4:
Bob is an agent of free will. You have observed throughtout many past experiments that Bob seems to almost surely always follow your orders (probability of 1 with a very high degree of confidence).

If Bob has free will then they have full control over if the event happens. Therefore you are not a murderer as a result of asking them to murder. However asking someone to murder is probably immoral for other reasons.

[Furby]

Well, he did say Bob would follow the orders. It is like a military leader telling his soldier to shoot this person. The soldier cannot question the leader since the leader is assumed to have outside knowledge making the act okay to do.

Now, if bob is not a person who has the right to kill someone when given orders, then both are in the wrong.

Person telling Bob knowingly knows bob will do it. Bob has free will and not in a position where he can justify his action (a soldier can say he was following orders for example) and therefore Bob is also in the wrong.

[OldTrees]

Person telling Bob knowingly knows bob will do it. Bob has free will.

These statements contradict. You can never know what a free will will do. If Bob does not have free will then the last free will is responsible for the resulting action.

[Furby]

I agree, but there can be a situation I believe where both can be convicted.

If Bob actually believed that killing this person was a necessity, then both can be convicted.

1) We can establish that Person X knew Bob would do it.

2) Bob should have been smart enough to not just trust a dear friend's word on something that involved killing someone.

So, to say who is at fault would require knowing some depth of the situation and establishing free will as well as if Bob was 'close' to person X.

Example: I tell a random stranger to go kill Bob and the stranger does it. I don't think you could hold me at fault since the stranger was dumb enough to actually do something I said, especially if there is no intent.

[OldTrees]

I agree, but there can be a situation I believe where both can be convicted.

If Bob actually believed that killing this person was a necessity, then both can be convicted.

That requires no hoops at all.
Bob is convicted for Murder
The person giving Bob and order is convicted for conspiracy (intent and preparations) to Murder

[Furby]

Intent/preparations with the fact he used Bob is proven=just as guilty as bob.

Even if he isn't found guilty, moral wise, he is still responsible and thus guilty.

[OldTrees]

@furby
I consider him guilty for a different type of action. I would not consider it murder despite being as immoral as murder. You might not consider this separation useful but I do.