I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing. I don't think it was a selfish action, and I do think the guy on the track was worth saving. But all th

I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing. I don't think it was a selfish action, and I do think the guy on the track was worth saving. But all the same, what we do know is that two people died because one person tried to save him, when doing nothing would've only had one die. We don't have enough information to know if it was reasonable to try and save him or not, or the ability of the guy to know those facts at the time - the information is too sparse. I was just pointing out that it's quite possible that it was inevitable that the guy on the tracks was going to die, and the guy trying to save him simply made it worse. There are also numerous stories of drowning victims drowning their would-be saviors. I don't think any and every attempt to save someone should be lauded as something good, and think those times we can ascertain that there's a good chance both people will die (versus the chance both will live), we should simply leave the victim to die, painful as it is to sit there impotently watching it happen. Doing otherwise gives is a net negative expectation of the number of people alive, and I can't say that's an ethical choice. I think people (including you) are very emotional about these kinds of situations, and aren't approaching them from a "try to maximize the number of people who live" perspective.