Apparently you can't understand the differences between ethical and reasonable. I made excuses for why it would be reasonable, not ethical, which I thought I made clear. I'm sure you're just misunderstanding me.
How can you engage in such an act unless you have rationalized it's ethical nature?
I can go kill someone right now, even though I know it would be wrong. So I could do what you said I couldn't.
The question is, is it justifiable? Moral?
One, there you go, doing exactly what I said not to do. Creating new terms and trying to justify them. I stuck to 3 that came to my head first because it would take an entire day to talk about every single case.
You explicitly said you believed it to be unethical, but then mentioned characteristics of the man to be killed which can only be viewed as relevant if you were making some ethical rationalization.
You can make a logical decision based on characteristics without taking morality into account. I said in the post-apocalyptic world they are in, it is better for a boy to survive than an overweight man. That's based off of the little I saw. Sure, it's possible the overweight man knows things that would make him more useful, but we can't know that.
I didn't alter the scenario in any way except to point out that the man's physical characteristics are irrelevant to whether or not killing one for expediency is rational.
"If the victim of the killing was 10 years old himself or of a completely healthy weight, it remains as rational to kill him for the purpose of delaying the threat and allowing the escape of the other two persons involved." - ChewyDante
More on this topic, I know killing the guy because he is fat is weaksauce, however, it would be more rational to let a guy and a boy live than to let both men die and have the boy maybe but almost definitely not live. Once again, morality has nothing to do with this, as you can see above.
But again, the question wasn't whether it was reasonable, it was whether it was ethical. Ethics and rational decision making are of course not mutually inclusive.
I understand this, and I think this is where we aren't understanding each other. I wasn't trying to connect being rational, reasonable, or necessary to it being ethical. I said at the very beginning that it was in no way ethical to do what he did.
I didn't add any extenuating circumstances to alter the scenario, so this is not addressing any critique or inquiry I've made.
We are talking about the circumstances at hand and whether they are ethical.
Under the circumstances, it was not ethical. I crated new categories to judge them by after i said this.
I highlighted why the age and weight were irrelevant to that by showing a 10 year old in good health would be equally as rational to kill in order to preserve the other two persons.
I disagree on who you should kill. If the 10 year old and Otis are running, then killing Otis is rational. If the 10 year old and Shane are running, then you could make a case about both having their perks. Also, all of this is completely speculative, which is why I shouldn't even have said it at all because for all we know Otis could be the most useful of the group.