I don’t think the standard formulation makes the assumtion that the people are chosen at random. It is just “5 humans” and you can think for yourself “I am human” and go “I have 20% chance of being one of those people”. But its just ignorance of the distribuiton.
I don’t think you can consistently think that people deserve trials and think that a person could have knowledge to justify not pulling the lever on them. We are assuming split second so no time for trial so we pretty much need to treat allegations of being hitler as hearsay. it’s kinda trivial that if a person had trial-proof-reason-to-think hitler-accusations hold. But saying person falls short of that means its okay to treat persons differently on an uncertainty. That is in serious conflict with “right to trial”. I guess the position is easier to defend when “wait and hold trial” is an option bu here it highlights how one is to conduct oneself in contexts where trials are impossible or infeasible. But a stance of “innocent until proven guilty” would say that consequence without possiblilty of defence is wrong meaning that “split second” doesn’t give liberty to treat people on lighter standards of proof. I thin one could be of the positon that if you are ” notorious hitler” but have no trial-level proof on you other persons duty-to-save you is lowered. That is “notoriety” is an “adequte” trial for “split second” enforcement.
“the person who has trial-level evidence is the one who is most likely to win the case”. I do think the legal system is more clear now that a trial is just a “test” with a very large number of small number of cases. It has a lot of important differences from a trial where the victim fails before having a chance of being guilty, in comparison to a trial where if they succeed they should have a chance of being guilty, even though they are being paid by the jury.
I don’t think the standard formulation makes the assumtion that the people are chosen at random. It is just “5 humans” and you can think for yourself “I am human” and go “I have 20% chance of being one of those people”. But its just ignorance of the distribuiton.
I don’t think you can consistently think that people deserve trials and think that a person could have knowledge to justify not pulling the lever on them. We are assuming split second so no time for trial so we pretty much need to treat allegations of being hitler as hearsay. it’s kinda trivial that if a person had trial-proof-reason-to-think hitler-accusations hold. But saying person falls short of that means its okay to treat persons differently on an uncertainty. That is in serious conflict with “right to trial”. I guess the position is easier to defend when “wait and hold trial” is an option bu here it highlights how one is to conduct oneself in contexts where trials are impossible or infeasible. But a stance of “innocent until proven guilty” would say that consequence without possiblilty of defence is wrong meaning that “split second” doesn’t give liberty to treat people on lighter standards of proof. I thin one could be of the positon that if you are ” notorious hitler” but have no trial-level proof on you other persons duty-to-save you is lowered. That is “notoriety” is an “adequte” trial for “split second” enforcement.
“the person who has trial-level evidence is the one who is most likely to win the case”. I do think the legal system is more clear now that a trial is just a “test” with a very large number of small number of cases. It has a lot of important differences from a trial where the victim fails before having a chance of being guilty, in comparison to a trial where if they succeed they should have a chance of being guilty, even though they are being paid by the jury.