Shove the Fatman, or, Huzzah for Sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism!

First, please continue to extend my initial two contentions regarding my own act/justification. Con has conceded that he has radically shifted the meaning of the hypothetical by adding details such as "monsters, importance, extended time, etc" and chose decision/justification pairings based on that modified hypothetical. Con has not directly addressed my argumentation as to why this is bad for debate: that it stifles discussion of the original question under debate and shifts the debate to an entirely different, new, and off-topic question. Con has also not addressed topicality except for one sentence at the end of the round where he argues that versatility translates into topicality, which doesn't make any sense. This alone should secure a vote for pro, as I made a clear argument that ignoring the "as described" portion of the resolution in favor of making up new descriptions results in a topicality violation, and Con's only response was a one-line plea to versatility. Con's argumentation in support of his radical shifts to the hypothetical consists of claims that I deny him fair ground due to "hiding" relevant details of the scenario, without which no case could be made. My first response is that Con has almost exactly the same amount of ground to make a case as Pro. As I mentioned previously, Con has the entire field of ethics to draw argumentation from, just as I did. The fact that he does not choose to do so and instead creates new details to hang single paragraph or shorter justifications on should be Con's problem, not Pro's. My second response is that the Train Problem is a classic problem in ethics. Originally proposed by Philippa Foot in 1967[1] as the "Trolley Problem" and the "Footbridge Problem," the Train Problem has become one of the basic tools in philosophy and ethics to compare how various ethical frameworks handle decisions that involve weighing harms and the morality of killing - to the extent that some academics use the term "trolley-ology" to describe the study of this problem [2 & 5]. If you google "Trolley Problem" or "'Footbridge Problem' ethics" you will find hundreds of ongoing arguments, from academics writing journal articles[3] to arguments on forums, video sites, and blogs (including one that used the Joker to illustrate it [4]), all using no more details than found in the description in the OP. This is because the simplicity of the situation is ideal to see if the ethics of a framework we intuitively agree with can handle a difficult situation[5]. The uncertainty is there for a reason. You have to apply your ethics to a situation based on the scenario as it stands, accepting that uncertainty means all things may not be equal but that you can't access that information[6]. Con's attempt to make an end run around the problem by introducing new elements which make the situation less difficult misses the point of the exercise. Instead of justifying a framework of ethics in the context of the scenario, Con has modified the scenario to fit his framework of (largely undefined) ethics. With this in mind, Con's action "taking in information through observation BEFORE making a decision" is not a response to the topic but a refusal to debate the topic and an attempt to create a new topic of his own. The action/decision pairs which Con presents after this divergence are not only off-topic, but not comparable. The resolution calls for the comparison of actions and their justification in the train problem. Pro is the only side that presented such an action and justification. Con has presented various actions and justifications, but they have all been in response to a radically different problem, as Con has conceded. In considering the most ethical action in situation X, we cannot compare an action A in situation X to an action B in situation Y. It's impossible to say that Action B is more or less ethical than Action A in situation X, as only one actually applies to situation X. However, when we consider all the solutions that apply to situation X we have to choose action A, as there are no alternatives offered. As I requested potential contenders to read carefully, this is to be a debate about comparative advantages; whether push/SERC is the most ethically justifiable solution to the Train Problem as described. Currently it is the only solution to the Train Problem as described, and is thus winning by default. While I offered to let Con present his own solution in Round 3, I do not extend the invitation to Round 4. At this point, having forced me to spend my time dealing with a series of off-topic arguments, it would be unfair for Con to spend 2 rounds on a brand new argument, leaving me only 1 round to reply to it. Con has not offered an on-topic alternative to push/SERC, thus Pro wins the vote. [1]http://www.blackwellreference.com... [2]http://www.open2.net... [3]http://philpapers.org... [4]http://religionblog.dallasnews.com... [5]http://www.nytimes.com... [6]http://books.google.com... (p. 97)