[fuego527]

I think a lot of this is belief-dependant. I have heard people say in this forum that if something is wrong, then it is wrong, and it doesn't matter if that wrong leads to a greater good. Now imagine a person who believed this made an absolutist statement such as "not saving a dying person is bad if it is reasonably possible for you to do so". Now, if this person saw Adolf Hitler lying on the ground dying, and there was medicine that would save him in their right pocket, and they did not give the medicine to him, this would be logically inconsistent.

However, people who think on a level closer to that of EV, and share the same doctrine that "not saving a dying person is bad if it is reasonably possible for you to do so", could just walk by without saving Hitler without being logically inconsistent. Not saving him would be "bad" or "EV-" just because not saving anyone is "bad", but the fact that if you don't act that Hitler will die changes things. If this person views Hitler's death as a "good" thing, then it is possible that the EV+ of Hitler's death could outweigh the EV- of saving a person's life and the system as a whole of not saving this person's life who is Hitler could be EV+ or "net good".