Gustaf's philosophical question number 4 (NO TROLLEYS)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A slight difference in that in situation 1, we have no way of knowing whether Mr. Jones would have carried through with his intentions had the cousin shown signs of life.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Except that the difference given is not between acts and omissions.  In both cases, an omission is made, but in only one case is an opportunity to act available.  Here is a revision of your cases that provides only omission as possible in case 1 and only action as possible in case 2.

Case 1: Mr. Jones is confined to a wheelchair and has limited mobility.  Mr. Jones has a wealthy little cousin. He is the only heir to this wealthy little cousin. Mr. Jones likes money. One day, as he rolls into the bathroom in his cousin's big mansion, he sees that the boy has had some kind of accident, probably slipped and banged his head on the side of the bath-tub or something. He's floating in the tub, face-down. Jones decides that this is his chance. He could reach the chain for the drain plug and let the water out, but does not.  The boy never moves but simply drowns by his own accord.

Case 2:  Mr. Smith is confined to a wheelchair and has limited mobility.  Mr. Smith has a wealthy little cousin. He is the only heir to this wealthy little cousin. Mr. Smith likes money. One day, as he rolls into the bathroom in his cousin's big mansion, he sees that the boy has had some kind of accident, probably slipped and banged his head on the side of the bath-tub or something. He's floating in the tub, face-down. Smith decides that this is his chance.  He can't reach the chain for the drain plug and let the water out. However, the boy starts giving weak signs of life so Smith applies a little gentle pressure by his hand to keep him down and the boy consequently drowns.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, both options are available. But the question is not about the person in one case picking either an act or an omission. It's about two persons, one which killed by action and one which killed by omitting in otherwise identical circumstances. Thus, it provides the basis for comparing acts and omissions, don't it?

No.  In your version, both persons omitted puling the person out of the water, meaning that the omission is not part of the comparison.  The comparison in your version is between:

• Mr. Jones, who prepared to commit an act, but never got the chance to.
• Mr. Smith ,who prepared to commit an act, got the chance to, and did so.