Muscles posted...
If you don't act you are an observer of someone else's atrocity, if you do act you become a participant of the single person's murder
No. Inaction is in and of itself an action that one chooses. In the scenario you choose to either be responsible for 5 deaths or responsible for 1. People who try to weasel out of this are cowards; you are already a participant in the scenario. "I choose not to participate = I could have killed 1 person and saved 5, but I instead killed 5 people and saved 1."
If we apply your attitude to the real world, then the inaction of nations when the Rwandan genocide took place doesn't matter. The inaction of nations during the genocides happening NOW don't matter if that's the case. And that's ridiculous on its face.
Accrovideogames posted...
The only reason I wouldn't pull it is if I somehow find the single person's life more important than the group's. It can be both objective or subjective. Subjective is if the single person is someone I love. Objective is if the group consists of dangerous criminals or terminally ill people, or the single person is doing great things for humanity.
This is unfortunately where it gets muddled. There's lots of ways to complicate this, as the meme has demonstrated over the years, lol.