> Until then, they all go, yes kill one to save more, but that REALLY isn't right, not ethical

So you think that the ethical thing to do is to allow the 6 to die (as opposed to killing the 1 in order to save the 6)?

I don't think anybody has said that thus far, but it is a view, yes.

Kant might agree with you, actually (though there are different ways we can understand Kant).

How come you think that the ethical thing to do is to allow the 6 to die? Do you think you should follow a maxim like 'thou shalt not kill' even when refusing to do so results in the death of more?

For a real world case there was a woman called Sophie who was alive during the Nazi reigeme. A Nazi soldier told her that she could choose whether the soldier would shoot her daughter or her son. If she refused to choose then he would shoot both.

Should she choose or not? How should she decide?

In that particular case she chose for the soldier to shoot her daughter because she figured her son would have more chance of surviving the concentration camp.

What would you do?

If we think about what we would do in cases like that when we aren't actually in them... Then we are more likely to do what we think (all things considered) is the right thing in the face of time pressure.

That is the thought.