> involves someone going out of their way to imperil people
No it doesn't, where did you get that from?
> accidents are morally superior to murder
Predictable accidents vs murder? What's the difference but personal liability?
> Nobody gave the person cancer
You say it's not about "being linked to the action", yet you think this relevant. Who cares if no-one gave them cancer, does that make it morally superior to die of natural cancer?
> Your intention is to help the person, but you can't
Only because of the way you've framed it. What if you could have helped, if another course of action had been taken?
> then you're basically resorting to "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway"
I disagree. You'll have to argue why this is the case.
> involves someone going out of their way to imperil people
No it doesn't, where did you get that from?
____________
That's the entire premise of the discussion! What do you mean where did I get that from?
>Predictable accidents vs murder? What's the difference but personal liability?
One is tragic, the other unethical and tragic. This point is exactly where you wind up with "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway" - particularly when you write: "Isn't that just self concern? You can't be linked personally as the cause of negative consequence, so you want to remain divorced from it." Here, you represent doing the right thing as avoiding being linked personally, as if it's just a self-interested maneuver. You're literally, plain as day saying that ethics is merely self interest, hence "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway."
The example you wrote above about a girl being run over and nobody helping is completely a false analogy (and a car analogy, no less :)). The assumption from the start, which I made very clear, is that you can't help without hurting others. Saving the girl who was run over does not imperil anyone and is completely moot!
The points in your response have been tactical rather than open (e.g. forcing me to go back and re-state the basic premise, which you suddenly no longer acknowledge, forcing me to go back and prove that you actually made the claim about ethics being self-interested, even though you did so plainly) and I don't appreciate that. These tactics further my conviction that your position is unjustified and ultimately dangerous.
> Except lots of eggs get broken today as a matter of course. If a technology saves lives, losing them to get it quicker might be a matter of balance.
The premise is that losing lives can be offset against saving them. "going out of their way to imperil people" suggests needless harm.
> You're literally, plain as day saying that ethics is merely self interest
No I don't, I give a specific example where I think this is the case; I don't apply this to all situations, or ethics in general.
I also don't "represent doing the right thing as avoiding being linked personally" - I do represent this as the only difference between two examples of doing good, (and hence don't think they are any different), but I don't question the value of doing good, but the relative values of one over another; I see value in saving lives, I don't see value in saving fewer lives because there might be personal liability.
> Saving the girl who was run over does not imperil anyone
No it doesn't, where did you get that from?
> accidents are morally superior to murder
Predictable accidents vs murder? What's the difference but personal liability?
> Nobody gave the person cancer
You say it's not about "being linked to the action", yet you think this relevant. Who cares if no-one gave them cancer, does that make it morally superior to die of natural cancer?
> Your intention is to help the person, but you can't
Only because of the way you've framed it. What if you could have helped, if another course of action had been taken?
> then you're basically resorting to "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway"
I disagree. You'll have to argue why this is the case.