Why can't people understand something conceptually and still think its cold blooded. Still, don't forget, the people who are being saved are equally as human, and their deaths would hurt also. This is not an easy decision, but ultimately, since they're all people, the one person's death is necessary here.
Yes, I think that killing one person to save two people is a rational transaction, because it is the best way to save the most people possible. Most wars are started on this premise. People think that it is better to kill the people who want to kill others, so they justify taking force against them first.
Killing one person to save two people is not really a rational decision.There are always other avenues of persuasion before two innocent people lose their lives.Especially in a law enforcement situation lots of negotiation tactics can be used before the elected person has to be forced to take innocent lives.
To kill on person to save two others is basically like saying that you do not value their life as much as you value the other peoples life. There is no reason to think that someones life is less valuable just because you have the potential to save 2 with the cost of 1. Unless the person is willing to sacrifice their own life, it is not worth it and is just cold blooded murder.
I reject, in all its forms, a utilitarian philosophy, where the ends are used to justify the means to them. While great care must be given to the intention of an action, intending to cause good by doing evil can never be accepted or justified. Once the first evil is justified by its result, there will follow a steady torrent of new evils in its wake. No man of conscience should ever allow that to happen.