And yet you hate technicalities. Interesting.
There was no technicality. The technicality is saying that I didn't actually kill him, because I didn't pull the trigger.
Black and white is basically an extreme, something without circumstance, or perfect consequence. A truth is an entirety laid out. A technicality is a bending of the situation to work in one's favour.
Such as, "I didn't actually kill him, I hired Corpy to do it for me." The end result was I had him killed, which is no different from me killing him, as it was my hand that set forth the action itself. Technically, I didn't kill anybody. In all truth, he died because of me. But since I didn't pull the trigger, am I any less at fault?
I don't believe in BS relativism. I didn't say everything is black and white. But everything is not gray either as you imply. I absolutely disagree with your proposition that there are zero perfect solutions. It depends on what the question or problem is.
You can't have it both ways. Because either the world is black and white, or shades of gray. If neither, then it's nothing. The world is built up of multitudes of ideas and motives ranging in each and every individual on Earth, given their position and disposition of life as they understand it.
I will agree that the situation determines the solution, but the situation at hand is nothing light, nor is it anything perfect. Someone has to die. A perfect solution is everybody lives, or everybody dies, making it "fair" both ways. Since it's an either or, a life weighed on your shoulders, it becomes very imperfect.
Granted humans are not math and that is why under the hypothetical The Corpulent1 gave, i am unwilling to place more value on the lives of the millions over the lives of the one. The one's life is no less valuable than the million.
And while I agree that no life is seemingly more important, it now becomes the quantity of life. To save a single life, would you snuff out a million? The answer is no, because one life simply isn't worth a million. A million people will die for a single person, and what of them? Could you honestly face them, and say, "I could not save you, because I would not choose him"? And their families, millions, possibly billions of people worldwide at a massive loss. Driven to suicide in several cases, downturn and lives destroyed, affecting even more people? A single life would only have a few dozen collateral casualties. The question simply is how many casualties are you willing to cause? Are you ready to condemn millions for one single person? Sacrifice them for him?
As for humans following strict laws world wide, I never said that they did. But what is right or wrong is not defined by how many people do it. If 65% of married men beat their wives, because the majority does it does not make it right. At the end of the day we have absolutely no control over what others do but we do have control over what we do and we should expect to be held accountable for it.
I never said right and wrong was defined by the sheer amount of people. I would be the last to say simply because a majority says so, would they be right, when several times, I'm the only one saying something, and the only one who's right in points of fact.
However, to say we have no control over another is absolutely naive. We have tons of control and influence on one another. For instance, if Tropico were to come online, my entire disposition would change dramatically. If I were a killer, I'd probably not kill. If I were suicidal, I might not change my mind. Each other's presence simply alters people around us, and our actions do even more. When the choice is literally placed on you, what you do affects others. In this case, millions of others. It's not simply your life anymore, not just you, no selfishness can prevade and corrupt you here, for it will cost lives if it does.
I never said anything about waiting for the perfect situation to occur. My point is that we individually have to be responsible in the choices that we make. This thread deals with the question of what characteristic defines a hero and i submit that one of the most significant ones is placing the needs of others above his or her own. Although this is not a perfect world, we in our small way either contribute to making it better or contribute to making it worse.
And how would letting them die place the needs of others above your own? You made the choice not to kill, and doom them yourself. Your choice, your responsibility. You decided not to act, and lay a million lives to the afterlife. The choice was simple. You let one die, or you let a million die.
Lastly, I will not hesitate to state that i believe in GOD and that my very soul and everyone elses rests in His hands. I believe in the sovereignty of GOD and that nothing happens that he does not allow to happen for his own unfathomable reasons and ultimate glory. With that i also believe in the perfect Justice and Rightousness of GOD, and that he exacts perfect justice at some point in time either on this or on the other side of eternity. If He tells me not to kill, my job is to obey in faith and leave the rest in His perfectly capable hands.
So then it is your religion and personal beliefs that have doomed several, and that is no different. While I enjoy the honesty and devotion you place in your faith, the result is no different. For this, there is no argument, as the cause of a being higher than our own would undoubtedly be unquestionable. But for such a high being to exist, the idea that we understand what they want from us would be as you said, "unfathomable". A book says not to kill, a book says not to let others suffer. However, here is the contradiction. You decide to kill, a few suffer. You decide not to kill, you allow millions to suffer. A holy obligation is nothing of a laughing matter, but if you truly felt that your God wanted you to be morally ambiguous, this would be it. Because you wouldn't require morals, you wouldn't require anything even relating to them, as you simply do not act with them at all. So there is nothing moral about it. Condeming to death is almost no different than killing yourself, save a technicality or two.
In TheCorpulent1's hypo i see no inconsistency in my position by respecting the dignity of life of every individual and not taking the life of the one that my GOD in his moral law has ordered that i not take. GOD would have the power to save and deliver the million if it is His will. He also, if the million are not saved has the power to avenge the million by punishing the one's directly responsible for killing them.
He also said he would never interfere in human business ever again. Meaning there will be no deus ex machina, that we have been left to defend and progress ourselves, as our very nature caused him to leave us alone.
While I definitely can see you see things in a bigger picture than most, the burden is still yours to bear. The choice was left to you, and the responsibility of their lives is on your shoulders. While you didn't pull the trigger, you DID point the gun.