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

I thank con for an amusing reply. I would first ask for my two contentions to be extended into this round, as they were not directly challenged. Having done that, I note that Con has tried to shift us into a different debate than the one began in the OP. I offer four objections to Con's arguments. 1. Con doesn't get to do that. The hypothetical Con responded to was not the hypothetical I proposed. The Train Problem as I articulated it does not involve knowledge of guilt, the Joker, landmines, fleeing murderers, suicides, or any other elements beyond the description. It is not good argumentation to change the terms of a hypothetical in order to refute it, as if this was accepted as good practice, all hypothetical argumentation would be rendered invalid. All a person arguing against a hypothetical would have to do is add, subtract, or change elements of a hypothetical situation until it supported his or her side. The actual questions the hypothetical raises would never have to be addressed. I argue this is bad, and that changing the terms of a hypothetical to defeat an argument based on the unchanged hypothetical should be rejected. 2. Even if Con did get to do that, it wouldn't work here. In his scenario, Con plays detective and starts to determine why there are people on the train track. The train smooshes the five people before he can figure it out, meaning that he better hope they were Joker minions, because otherwise he's made the wrong choice by his own argument. 3. Con doesn't propose an alternative justification Con has said that if the five people shout "suicide," or were responsible for the condition of the single person, they should die. Con has said that if the Fatman is standing on a mine, or chasing a murderer, then he should not be pushed. However, con has not made an argument for an ethical framework to place these actions in. Without an ethical justification for his proposed actions, Con cannot argue that his justification is better than SERC, and thus cannot win the debate. 4. Con's proposed actions are compatible with SERC. Con has not proposed an ethical framework, but the way he worded his chosen actions, they seem to fit within the SERC ethic. The rule I proposed was that preserving life is desirable. While I claimed claimed this was the ultimate rule, I don't believe any other rules need to be introduced to deal with Con's changes to the hypothetical. The Joker is a mass-murderer. His minions assist him in this. If I allow the train to run over the minions, then I have preserved not only the single life of the unsmooshed person, but all the lives of the people the minions would have killed. If the Fatman is standing on a mine, then by not pushing him I preserve many lives. If the Fatman is chasing a murderer, or if the five people jumped onto the track shouting suicide, then the hypothetical would have to be changed even further to specify whether he would catch the murderer, if the murderer was a serial killer, if the people shouting suicide are trying to attempt suicide, and so on. As I argue that the changes to the hypothetical so far are illegitimate, I will obviously not participate in modifying it further. So in the situations where the changes to the hypothetical result in arguable cases, they are compatible with the justifications in the OP, meaning Con has not actually presented a challenge to my position.