[SpEd3Y]

Andrzej Sapkowski in the Witcher books, through Geralt, said something that might apply to this situation: "Evil is evil [...] Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I’m not a pious hermit. I haven't done only good in my life. But if I’m to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all"

Thoughts? :)

[ajnin]

Agreed, I think the utilitarian approach that goes something like "let N and M be two integers so that N > M, then N human lives are worth more that M human lives" (with subtleties related to age and so forth) is very, very dangerous. It can lead to all sorts of atrocities in the name of some greater good. My approach is to never pull the lever unless 1) I would get killed or 2) humans would get killed vs something non-human on the other track.

[vlaaad]

This quote is very popular, but the moral of the story you are referencing is the opposite. Geralt rejects this point of view at the end, because inaction is also action.

[SpEd3Y]

I think is so popular because of the Killing Monsters trailer.

He does end up actually making a choice. But the choice is not between killing Renfri and Stregobor (which was the initial lesser evil choice) but he chooses to stop Renfris' gang from killing innocent people to draw Stregobor out. Renfri could have then left and look for another opportunity to kill Stregobor. Geralt told her at least two times to leave and she refused saying she made her choice, attacked Geralt and died. So Geralt ended up killing Renfri but as a result of her choice, not his. And he did stop Stregobor from taking her body and study it (which was his initial intent). So he did definitely not take his side. I would argue Geralt chose between good and evil, not between two lesser evils.

[McBeige]

You don't get to not choose.

[SpEd3Y]

Why? :)

Edit: Switzerland chose to stay neutral in a world war. I think that's fine. Not getting involved is a viable option in my opinion.