Michael Sandel: What's the right thing to do?

View Video first: http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_what_s_the_right_thing_to_do.html

"thank you uncle Osama for telling me about the video"

it is a very interesting subject which i would love to hear or perhaps READ your comments and opinion on. i already posted the coment and i wrote:

first of all i would like to thank mr. Michael Sandel for his outstanding performance in this tough yet great argument. i couldn't -not for one second- be distracted from the video and my eyes were wide open on the screen.
as for the issue, i think that in all situations the decision was dependant on one man or let's say "mind" and this mind has lived years under certain circumstances that made up his sets of rights and wrongs which certainly varies from one society to another if not a house to another . it is not about outnumbering because racism, for instance, was built upon the hatred of thousands to a minority of only different skinned people. So is the number a reliable factor here?
The same applies to the "necessity demands" point of view. Who gets to decide what's necessary or not? Let's view the situations:
(1) the driver –unwilling to commit murder- gets to decide whether to kill 1 or 5 people in this tragic accident. Apparently, The value of one person is priceless to him because he –the driver- wants to survive. Otherwise he'd simply crash in between and save the 6. What makes his life worth a better chance than the one worker?
(2) The man on the bridge should NOT push the fat guy. Because the driver is the one who should decide. Getting involved in others decision may cause a worse consequence. What if he missed the car? he would have killed the fat man, the driver, and whoever was there to be dead. In politics we have tons of examples on how penetrating into a countries inner affairs would damage both societies.
(3) The tragic voyage. Even if the 17 yrs old sailor agreed to sacrifice himself to save the others it is not the right of anyone to take the life of a breathing human even when he's sick. The necessity here is justified only when they eat the flesh of the first man who dies among them. They wouldn't die all at the same time, would they?
(4) The doctor: if I was in this situation I would pick up the patients randomly because all of them have equal rights to be saved and survive. I'd let their bodies decide when to leave life.
(5) The organ donor: would the doctor donate his kidney if he's a positive donor to one of them? Would he do that to his daughter if she was the person lying down in peace next to his ER? I don't think so.
Again, I really enjoyed every split second of the lecture and I would want to be there whenever this issue is on :)