Yeah, America was such a fascist dictatorship before that God-given ruling in 2003.

maintgallant, are you aware what consensus is?

It is interesting watching this discussion evolve. What can be evaluated at an ethical level by some, can easily be turned into a discussion about politics, and policy, on a societal or even global level by others. This is not surprising, because politics is basically an attempt to enforce a given morality on a people. So it seems only natural to me that a philosophical argument would be expressed in political thinking, but what does seem counter-intuitive is the changes that come about sometimes when the transition is made from philosophical thought to political thought. The main one that jumped out at me is political realism, or Real Politik, if you prefer. It seems similar to Utilitarianism in many ways, but while the scope is widened in one way (from individual ethical choices to societal ones) it is also delimited in another (from a true concern for the well-being of everyone to only a concern for others of the same nationality). So while some may argue that politics are the application of philosophical theory, I am reminded that during this application the theory tends to be reinterpreted and often is fundamentally changed.

This is probably the best discussion I've read on here in a long time. Thanks everyone for providing a fun read! (Also please keep going, I'll try to keep up more so I can actually jump in where I feel I have something to add, which would have happened several times earlier had I actually been reading along as this was happening. As it is points have either already been made or that part of the discussion has already passed us by and I'd rather see where the rest of it goes).

A fantastic quote by Nemoy/Spock. It actually IS aplicable to almost anything, if you get obscure enough in your arguments.

Sic, I think you'd be hard pressed to get any ethical consensus... and in if you did it would probably be far too slow to be able to apply to most ethical situations.

@Centurian, if I had to choose between one life and several I'll take the one and save the several. Now, the real challenge is when there is some question if the train might stop before hitting the van, but a guarantee it will hit the individual (they are closer or whatever).

My favorite one is "your brakes have failed and there are only two path to take with three options. One, the left hand path has an old man in a wheelchair, the right hand path has a baby carriage which may or may not have a baby, or you can hit the bridge pylon between the two of them, likely killing yourself. Do you take a chance you'll survive the crash? Take a chance the baby carriage is empty? Or plow through the old man...

Oh, and my answer is I take the chance I'll survive the crash. I was put to a similar test and passed this past Christmas whne I came over a hill to the flashing lights of another SUV in the middle of the lane I was in and an oncoming car. I chose to take my Jeep off road through a fence and just missed a tree. I totalled the jeep, but I was OK. Had I hit the SUV in front of me, I likely would have killed the person trying to help another car out of the ditch as he was working on his front winch at the time and the roads were slick enough I would have pushed his SUV into him. Had I crossed into the other lane, I may well have killed the driver of the oncoming car as well as myself. The final result was no injuries, just 12K worth of damage to a Jeep valued at around 14K and a ranch fence taken out.

Draugnar, that's intense. Very quick thinking on your part. I saw a similar thing happen on the highway. About two hundred meters a head of us, a car tried to pass a 16-wheeler in a two lane highway. This was typically allowed because the highway was classically very empty, it being in Newfoundland and all... but the car couldn't have picked a worse time because just as he switched into the other lane another car came into sight barrelling down that lane. The two cars were going far too quickly to stop in time without some serious damage and injuries and the car was side by side with the 16 wheeler and on the other side was a deep ditch. The driver of the 16 wheeler actually pulled his truck off the road which slanted downward to let the passing car switch back into the right lane and speed ahead. I seriously thought the 16 wheeler might tip over because it was slanted and wobbling, but it managed to swerve back on to the road and stabilize, completely averting any damages. This all happened at around 120km/h. It was quick thinking and selfless behaviour on the trucker's part.

Wasn't thinking on my part as much as instinct. Flashing taillights. Hit brakes. Antilocks kick in but not slowing down. Look around and see oncoming headlights. Back off brakes and steer to side of the road and pray not to hit anything more solid than my Jeep. Gut reaction. I wasn't going very fast (it was an ice storm that night) and the airbag didn't even deploy, but the post of the fence kicked up under the Jeep and rammed the radiator and transmission/transaxle cooler up into the engine block. I'm sure if I hadn't threaded the needle between the trees, the airbag would have gone off.

chris you're absolutely right. theres no way, say, every american could agree o ethical issues, not even every lichtensteinian, which is why I'm a huge proponent of small self-governing communities