Is it right to judge if the life of one person is worth more than ten others?

Ahead of time they are all the same value. Even if you have complete information, there is no achievable consensus or possible objectivity to quantify their value.

Therefore, (a) you make prejudices and prejudices, they are all the same, or (b) you suspend your action until you make the right decision. Please be aware of the difference

It is not an option, it is a pause of every choice until a good decision is made. The train will not wait that long, but it is just a bad luck (or causal chain).

Every action has several reasons and processes. If you change the course of a specific action, you will become part of the cause of something. The only possible responsible choice is not to disturb or change behavior policies, as long as it is better, there are good reasons to think so

That's why it is not right to make these decisions unless you are specifically appointed to do so. For example. You are responsible for the train

In society, people do not like to make decisions about the lives of others unless otherwise specified. For example. Judge or medical staff. There is usually well-established practice, rules or agreement when someone has to do this

If someone made such a decision and that person did not just make this decision, that decision also (someone) (somehow) some information (inevitable) makes a decision about the lives of others It means to establish a precedent for the method. . This is completely immoral, as morality is basically about this type of rule. Rather than doing bad things (killing), it compromises the rules that society protects (moral)

PD: A similar dilemma may be to judge whether some people are correctly experimenting for scientific progress and saving countless lives. How many people can be sacrificed to find a cure for cancer? How many people will die of cancer in the next century? I think you are a politician. If you sign and support the law, you will try 10,000 people and you can be sure this will save the lives of 100 million people of the next century It will happen if you do not sign not. Cancer of the century Is this decision correct?

This is a right to file an objection, not a right or duty to give human dignity, value, and personality. The right to appeal is the sole right to allow the appellate court judge to tolerate life. . . Without it, democratic standards can not carry out government problems (pages 4 to 5). Judge Hughes (1936) stated that this objection is "a spirit of contemplation to attract legal and future wisdom and subsequent judgment could rectify the judge's mistakes in the court's ruling" . Judge Cardoso (1925) pointed out that "court spokespersons were cautious, cowardly and afraid of lively words." . . . Opponents tell the future, and his voice tends to be the key that has lasted for many years - (pp. 714 - 15)

"Spirit of the Law": SUPREME COURT JUSTICES reads diseases of Taiwan, WILLIAM D. BLAKE and HANS J. HACKER

Human self-esteem is the result of one's own experience in life and depends on personal judgment of one's own worth as a person. This person always judges his worth so that a person judges the value of others . How this person evaluates his or her own value is a measure of his / her self-esteem, which may be low, high, or somewhere in between. Human self-esteem changes constantly in emotion, environment, experience, and change, and will change in different social environments.