[belsarius]

Its like a modified trolley problem. Disregarding the "sacrificing the few for the many" part of the experiment, the difference between say Bid Laden and a Healthcare CEO is in pulling the lever.

If you have the ability, and responsibility, to pull the lever and don't, then someone dies are you as culpable as someone who pulled the lever and someone died?

That's the morality of it. "Hitler, Bid Laden, etc" actively pulled the lever and people died. UHC refused to pull the lever and allowed people to die. Now it comes down to personal and societal morality.

If I am a lifeguard standing on the dock and someone is drowning and I have a ring buoy. I look down and think, that person should probably be able to swim on their own so I don't throw it, and they drown. Am I a murderer? Did I have a responsibility to help them as I had the tools and my role was to assist them?

I can understand both points of view. Personally, I think denying of a positive action makes me as culpable as performing a negative action, which is where the internet seems to be leaning right now.

How much of the "internet posters" reflects societal morality? Its hard to say, as societal morality seems to be determined by the ruling class of oligarchs. You never would have seen the police resources thrown at this case if the victim had been a claims adjuster for UHC as opposed to the CEO. That in itself tells us how much of our morality is judged by our wealth and status.

The internet outrage is not just some random hatred, it is showing the very large chasm in morality growing between the ruling class and the plebs.