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

Now, to object to my opponent's four objections: 1. "Con doesn't get to do that. " My opponent claims my hypothetical situations are inconsistent with his own. However, this is false. In my situation, a person gathers all information possible within the time given. My opponent's hypothetical situation does not exclude the possibility of obvious guilty, the Joker, landmines, murderers, suiciders, etc. Therefore, these are potential aspects of the situation that must be addressed. Therefore, one should first check to see if anything against pushing the fat man is present BEFORE pushing the fat man. 2. "It wouldn't work here. " My opponent claims that it would take too long to ascertain where the guilt lies. However, my opponent's situation does not exclude ample time to discern what's going on. Plus, it can quite often be fairly obvious where the guilt lies, needing no additional time. For example, if you saw the five men tie down the one man, and then saw the Joker tie down the five men, this information must be recalled before deciding whether or not to throw the switch. If the people jumping in front of a train are yelling "Suicide! " one can immediately realize that they intend to die. Additionally, the commotion of the fat man discovering that he is on a mine would reveal the incident well before any people jump off roofs. Basically, one must simply remember what they know about the situation from beforehand before making any decisions in which lives hang in the balance. 3. "Con doesn't propose an alternative justification. " Okay. If the five men doomed to die are the same people who put the one person in the position of death, why should numbers matter? If there were just as many guilty people as innocent, who would you have killed? The guilty. Why reward the guilty for being greater in number? Why make the numbers even relevant, when the guilty will go to jail for the rest of their lives anyway, while the one man might actually accomplish something in life? If the five men are yelling "Suicide! " they are trying to get themselves killed by their own choice. They quite seriously WANT to die. The fat man standing on the edge of the train track obviously does not want to die; otherwise, he would have stepped in front of the train already. By my opponent's proposal, those who'd rather die would live and he who'd rather live would die. Nobody would win. By my proposal, those who'd rather die would die and he who would rather live would live. Everybody would win. Obviously, my scenario is more ethically justifiable, because everybody winning is better than nobody winning. If the fat man is standing on a mine with the power to blow up the entire station, along with the train and the five men on the track, pushing the fat man would result in more un-consented death than not pushing the fat man. Therefore, to preserve life, the fat man should not be pushed. Now, I would like to point out something here: the hypothetical situation only specifies that five people fall onto the track. It does NOT say why. It could have been suicide. It might have been the result of too much horseplay by five drunken people. If five drunk people walk onto the tracks, they should not be saved over the fat man, because it's completely their own fault that they're about to die. The fat man is not obligated to give his own life to save five drunks. That's his own decision to make. 4. "Con's proposed actions are compatible with SERC. " In preserving life, five suiciders would be saved as opposed to one man who'd rather live, and five stupid drunks would be saved as opposed to one sober, responsible man. My opponent claims that the minions would continue to kill people if the train does not kill them. However, the police would obviously arrest the minions, as they are conveniently tied up. After the Joker tied his own minions to the train tracks, I doubt he'd come back for them. Therefore, they would kill nobody. However, they are still guilty, and I propose that guilt should be taken more into account than a life count. My opponent claims that the people shouting suiciding might not be suiciding. I think that it's fairly obvious that people shouting "Suicide! " are trying to suicide, and any people who make themselves appear to be suiciding when they are not are stupid enough to deserve to be killed for the sake of natural selection anyway. Now, my opponent ultimately claims that as long as SERC is followed, the resolution is affirmed. However, as clearly shown by his first paragraph in Round 1, he is asserting that pushing the fat man is more justifiable than any other combination of actions, such combinations including gathering as much information possible within the given time, then making a more responsible decision. I do believe that I have shown gathering relevant information to allow for the making of a more moral decision than my opponent's rash decision of pushing the fat man without considering the entire situation with his head. To conclude the four points: 1. It cannot be assumed that what my opponent sets up with the explanation is the only relevant information available, and it cannot be assumed that the five soon killed are guilt-free, and not self-responsible for how they got into this mess. 2. There is obviously enough time to observe why the events that occurred as they did. It's kind of hard to miss "Suicide! " or drunk fools. 3. I have provided several justifications for my proposed actions based on various situations within my opponent's hypothetical description. 4. This is irrelevant, as my opponent's goal is not to affirm SERC, but to affirm pushing the fat man with no thought as to why the people are there to make you want to push the fat man. I do believe that I have countered my opponent's objections. Don't save the guilty over the innocent. I look forward to my opponent's response. Good luck.