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

1,2. "Con still can't do that." My opponent claims that we are only talking about "proper ethical behavior in a given situation." However, a large part of my argument deals with the idea that in a given situation, one must observe and recall as many relevant details as possible within the available time to make the most proper ethical decision. My opponent claims that I am adding extraneous elements. However, it is not so much that I am adding elements, as my opponent is hiding them. Question: Is the fat man wearing a bow tie? Apparently, the Train Problem does not say. Therefore, we must conclude that the fat man might be wearing a bow tie, and if the presence of a bow tie happens to be relevant to the situation, it must be factored in. My opponent claims that there are many possible details (monsters, importance, extended time, etc.) that would radically shift the meaning of the hypothetical. Therefore, my plan involves identifying these details, and making a decision accordingly. My opponent's plan is throwing caution into the wind and pushing the fat guy, even if the fat guy is an ambassador from China (as China would be extremely upset to learn that their ambassador was pushed by an American into a train, likely leading to war), and the five men are part of a suicidal cult. Such a decision would be highly unwise. My opponent then claims that "all the relevant details to the hypothetical were given in the OP," despite admitting that the above details would "radically shift the meaning of the hypothetical." This is an obvious contradiction. Many relevant details were omitted from the hypothetical, and I seek to uncover these details to make an ethically justifiable decision. My opponent claims that I have not addressed the Train Problem. However, I have. I have a solution for each case. My solution, taking in information through observation BEFORE making a decision, is a valid response to the train problem. The problem does not specify the importance or motivation of any of the people described; as this is relevant, one must identify each man's importance before pushing the fat man or NOT pushing the fat man. Ultimately, my opponent is trying to simplify his hypothetical beyond what it can be simplified to. 3. "Con's justification problems" First, to defend the notion that guilty people should be punished over the innocent: If the five tie up the one onto the train tracks with the intent of murder, they already consent to the current situation. If the Joker then ties them to the train tracks, it's their own fault for following the Joker. If the five men are saved, they will simply be thrown into jail for life, making no contribution to society and ultimately taking up jail space. If the one man is saved, he can continue to contribute to society with whatever job he has. I had already pointed this out in Round 2, but my opponent ignored it. The most logical and most beneficial decision, in this case, would be to save the innocent over the guilty. Next, to defend the notion that those who desire death should be granted death over those who do not desire death: This should be rather obvious. The suiciders want death. The fat man does not. The fat man wants life. The suiciders do not. You have the option of either making all six unhappy, or making all six happy. As happiness is valued in pretty much all moral guides, it is fairly obvious to promote happiness in all. Next, to defend the notion that five men's death is better than five men's death in addition to the death of everybody in the train station: This is obvious. The five men are going to die in either scenario, so it's basically a decision of whether or not you want to save yourself and everybody else. Unless you happen to be abiding by the devil's advocacy of wjmelements, you'd rather live, making pushing the fat man both murderous and immoral. Next, to defend the notion that the smart should not be sacrificed for the stupid: The dumb people are getting themselves killed. If they live through this accident, they'll probably put themselves in harm's way again anyway. The fat man, however, was smart enough not to step in the way of a train. Why punish the fat man for the mistakes of the stupid? That is what requires justification. XimenBao, here is a question for you: If you were the fat man, and you saw five stupid drunks walk onto a train track by their own stupid will, would you step in front of the train to save them? What if you saw five men jump onto the train tracks in a suicide attempt? Would you give up your own right to life to deprive them of the liberty to give away their own right to life? Please answer this question honestly. I would like the audience to ask themselves whether or not they would step into a train's path to save five drunks, or five suiciders. I would like to know if you would even be willing to give your own life for five completely random people, just as innocent as you are but slightly more clumsy. If the answer is "no," why force the fat man to give his life in a situation where you would not? That's hardly fair, and hardly moral. Finally, to justify any of the latter scenarios: The people hitting the tracks are immobilized. They are quite likely afflicted with paralysis [1] or some other medical condition due to the fall. Life with paralysis is very painful, and people with complete paralysis cannot contribute much of anything to society, instead leeching off of the successful in some way or another. A quick death by train would put them out of their misery. Why save them from liberation from pain? Many of these arguments already occurred in Round 2. My opponent simply ignored them. My opponent claims that I must dedicate myself to one proposal because he cannot counter them all in-depth. He need not counter them in-depth. He need only counter them with as much depth as I use to justify them. Additionally, all of my propositions are necessary, because my plan is to analyze the situation, and then act accordingly. Different justifications are required for the different hypothetical scenarios within my opponent's vague hypothetical scenario. 4. "Con's actions fitting SERC" My opponent has dropped this point. He asks why people who suicide are stupid. I never said that they are stupid. I merely said that they want death, and can be granted death, and should therefore be granted death. This is a fairly obvious tautology, suiciders wanting death, so it is obviously universal. A stupid man who puts himself in death's way should not expect to be saved by some incredibly altruistic saint. My opponent claims that I have conflicting justifications. I would like these conflicting justifications to be pointed out. 1&2. I have addressed the Train Problem, by pointing out that not enough is written to make an ethical conclusion. 3. I do believe that I have cleared up any misunderstanding surrounding my justifications. My opponent has not justified calling them contradictory. He calls them scattershot, but I have justified their scattershot-ness as necessary versatility to match numerous potential scenarios hiding in the Train Problem, that are neither specified nor ruled out. Since this round, I have clarity. I have enough depth to justify the proposed actions. My proposals are more topical than my opponent's, being much more versatile to match a horribly vague problem. I do believe that I have the upper hand. I look forward to my opponent's response. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...