>My point is that it is 100% unfeasible for the computer to model these probabilities I would agree. But my point is that making the decision, and then trying

>My point is that it is 100% unfeasible for the computer to model these probabilities I would agree. But my point is that making the decision, and then trying to say we're not making a decision, is disingenuous. So the question becomes: disingenuous to what end? We are making statements about what is or isn't permissible. In the case of the standard human laws, we (generally) find it impermissible for someone in such a situation to save their own life by ending someone else's, in the same way that if A puts a gun to B's head and says shoot C or die, for B to shoot C would be regarded in most jurisdictions as murder, regardless of any part A plays in the scenario. And replicating these laws in machines is perfectly fine. They, like us, have no chance of fully understanding any of the consequences of anything either of us experience, so we can probably only operate in a pragmatic functional fashion. However, in building a machine that replicates what is permissible in this way, as already applied to humans, we must also admit that we are instantiating in hardware a set of rules to, in certain circumstances, kill and or injure people, one way or the other. But we're doing this for the purpose of, also, preventing such where impermissible (and perhaps, even, reducing such overall). Yet, it still remains that we must construct what will do that; we must enact in a very precalculated fashion a predefined, concrete expression of what is permissible, and therefore, what is not permissible. But we, and this is the whole reason, I will contend, at the heart of the argument, and why the debate is a contentious as it is, that is that we very much do not want to admit to the expression. And only by saying the question can't be answered, therefore, here's an answer, can we do that.