"Choose one at random. If it's the research scientist the outcome is the same. If it's the serial killer the world is cured of cancer and eleven people see another day."
OUTLAW: "Flip a coin.."
OUTLAW beat me to it.
Since the consequences of making the wrong decision are so high, most people would refrain from pushing any button
Some consequences are higher than others. It's clear in this situation which one would be worse; and to what extent.
ProdigalSon: "Can't take a chance on killing the research scientist, gotta pass and leave it in the hands of a higher authority... "
If you don't believe in a moral "higher authority", would He/She/It really condemn you for taking such actions? If you do believe in a moral "higher authority, how would you know that He/She/It is either testing you or is neutral so long as you don't commit any willful immoral actions?
Furthermore, doesn't this assumption that only a moral "authority" has the right to take life, condemn soldiers and policemen; especially in view of the fact that they can sometimes make inevitable mistakes and kill someone innocent?
If this "higher authority" did condemn any of the above for taking such action, how moral an authority would it be?