Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec View Post
I think the point of the dillemma is that if the governor decides not to to sacrifice the child and the city gets massacred, the latter is still the doing of the besiegers, while the former would have been on the hands of the governor.

Another analogy would be that you're driving a bus, carrying 50 passangers across a bridge. The bridge begins to shake violently and is about to collapse. You've come to a halt, but realise that you still have time to drive the bus across the bridge to safety. However, in the chaos a motorcycle driver has fallen from his bike and now lies unconcious before the bus. Because of all the debris there is no space, and no time to move around him.

Personally I would both sacrifice the child and drive over the unconcious motorcycle driver. Both of them would die regardless of what you chose, chosing sacrifice is nothing more than damage control. Refusing to do so because you're unwilling to get blood on your own hands is, in my opinion, self-righteous cowardice.
The point is that all human life if of equally value, morally it is wrong to sacrifice one life for another. If the hypothetical city has 100,000 habitants then that baby's life has been weighed 100,000 times and been deemed of less worth than that of another human being.

That is what makes the sacrifice so very wrong.

Your hypothetical motorcycylist is somewhat different, as you have been placed in a situation where you have to make an immidiate decision, where the cyclist is already going to die on the bridge, and without an antagonising force. Running over him is still morally wrong, but perhaps easier to forgive.

Of course, in that case you could always try to get out and move the cyclist, or get everyone off the bus and tell them to run. Both are better choices than running him over.