But in this specific scenario it wouldn’t be Jack or Jill, it would be Jack or both of them, correct? Thus making Jill’s decision the lesser of two evils because Jack’s life is less than their lives combined. Or am I missing something?
But Jill might have survived even if she didn’t cut the rope.
There’s no guarantee that she’d die if she fell. Jack might not have either, but he did. Incompetence is no cause for an execution…not that she “executed” him, but y’know…
Take a look at the picture a few pages back; it shows Jill barely hanging by her head and feet over what appears to be an abyss. Unless there’s a way for Jack to be saved before Jill’s strength gives out, it looks like both will die.
Then how did she cut the rope? If she could have cut the rope, that means she was able to hold the combined weight on just three limbs. She might have used the hand to instead start swinging the rope and allow the hanging partner to grab onto a rock.
…and immediately fallen because of the extra difficulty of hanging on under a swinging, heaving load. Requiring people to take ridiculous risks with their own lives is precisely the kind of thing we don’t want the law to do! It reminds me of the people who say “You should have shot the gun out his hands!” to cops after incidents.