That makes sense.

I haven't read the actual study just yet (only the associated article that I did post), at least not to a point where I'm confident enough in my understanding of it.

Would this suggest those with the brain damage (or, the people that would push because of a rational of one way or the other) are immoral?

Are there any Satanic tenants that would answer this question?

The first one that comes to mind is the killing of animals only for food and self defense. Seeing as pushing the man would be moreso murder than switching the tracks, at least according to you (not that I disagree), would killing that man be a violation of that Satanic tenant?

You're right. My mistake.

Technically, that rule of the earth is “Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

Second time you've caught me. Them details are a bitch, huh?

Yeah, but that last one was kind of a joke.

If I remember correctly, the main thrust of that essay was to demonstrate that, in a historical context, "evil" has often been a catalyst for change rather than to justify acts of "necessary" evil.

The human being is immoral as a rule. Even if people with this particular kind of brain damage tend to show a bias to one particular kind of error, this is "abnormal" only in contrast with the "normal" person who shows biases to other kinds of error. To say anything else would just be self-flattery.

The relevant tenet here seems to me to be the Seventh Satanic Statement.

Ok, so just to reiterate for myself:

There is no Satanic solution to the problem above unless the one answering has something to gain from one of the outcomes. But since there is no defined gain/loss in the scenario, the solution must lie on other philosophies to be answered beyond just an initial reaction.

Thank you all that had something to offer and critiques to the application of Satanic thought.

I'd let the six people die, then kick the other prick off the cliff and say 'why didn't you do something you fucking stupid asshole'.

I can't relate to this sort of scenario. I don't even know six people.

I’d say that your reiteration is correct.

I'm not sure that even if there were gain/loss involved, that would be enough to say there was a "Satanic solution". Satanism doesn't justify doing things that are morally wrong.

What's right in ones eyes is wrong in anothers so on a global basis this is a complex subject.

Any subject worth any trouble is going to be complex. On the other hand, a few sound principles go a long way to cutting through bullshit.

Does everything have to involve personal gain? How about doing the right thing just cause it's the right thing?

I love how threads like these bring out people who are ready and eager to show how they are just heartless douche-bags.

Morals are subject to personal preference, for each action is selfish, thus influencing one's desire to uphold a specific code of ethics. Since we are all human animals we are by default going to have morals that uphold such laws as the freedom of movement and protection from harm. Pardon the one or pardon the many? My opinion on the subject is moot because the decision is for the one in control of the situation.