The ethics of prioritizing indirect results

Suppose a person who kills a mosquito has a 1% probability of preventing a person from being infected by mosquito bites and has a 1% probability that the person is a heinous murderer who will murder a hundred people after that. So if this person kills 1% of the mosquito and 1/10,000 of the infected person is also a murderer and saves 99 more people, it is more ethical, or the probability of 1 in 10,000, the result of indirectly killing 99 more people because of inaction is more moral. Unethical , does it need to be quantified, and what is the scale?

Obviously, neither of them is the direct result of behavior, but given the known probability of the result (this is a logically presupposed condition for the discussion of the problem, not a realistic possibility ), it is precisely because both are indirect results without responsibility. , will not involve the law at all, so you can and at most can only make moral judgments before implementing the behavior.

If it is quantified by simple calculation, the probability of doing good/evil for both is 99 out of 10,000; killing or not killing mosquitoes, the results of good and evil are just opposite; in terms of different consideration levels, the second layer (by Murderer-dominated outcomes) seem to be less meaningful than the first tier (mosquito-dominated outcomes), which again concerns whether the mosquito-beater is obligated to consider the second tier.

Therefore, in order to solve this difficulty, there should be such a premise that in moral judgment, any known probability of outcome cannot be ignored. If the probability of ignoring a certain outcome is listed as a place where procedural justice and obligations do not involve, there is no obligation to consider it, then the principle of priority of human life will lose its meaning under certain conditions. So in the two-track dilemma in this context, it is still immoral not to pull the rails. Of course, at the legal level it's another story, pulling the rails is murder, not pulling is inaction. If the chooser is more independent in his thinking, he needs to follow his own moral choices (that is, personal morality); if he is more social , he cannot pull the rails.

With such a premise, the person's two options for dealing with mosquitoes will be on the same level, that is, the level of the principle of human life first. There is a situation that does not consider the number of people, that is, the probability of saving people is higher, and the more such choices, the higher the probability that 100 people will die and 1 person will survive. The meaning of indirect morality is that moral choices are not based on obligations and so-called public moral standards, but on individual moral standards.

postscript

To state again, to state over and over again, this is discussing moral issues in a logical sense, not a practical sense. Please confuse the form and reality of the self-respect. For those of you who think that it is necessarily unrealistic to discuss the form away from reality, please respect yourself.