Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[vulcanlogician]

If we propose that this were the same person in two different situations in their life it;s easy to see that in saving five in the trolley example a person is being consistent with their consequentialist ethics.,..but having had their moral agency compromised by mortality has chosen a course of action in body farming quantitatively less optimal in killing 1 to save 5 rather than killing 1 to save 6.  

In the one, the subject could do no better.  In the other, he has failed by degree and made himself a murderer in the process.

The numbers game can get interesting... kill one to save 5?--nah. Kill one to save 50?--nope. Kill one to save 500?--um... 5,000? What about 5,000,000?

Comparing the thought experiments does cause me to rethink my intuitions, perhaps more than you. To me, it demonstrates that consequentialism is important in ethics, but not final. At some point it fails, and other considerations supercede the "maximally good outcome." You and I agree that the doctor's particular brand of responsibility causes a divergence, but you seem to stick to consequentialism a bit more than I do: "the medical system could not function if this were permissible" (or perhaps yours is a more Kantian take on the issue). I see the doctor's unique responsibility in terms of his being individually responsible for each patient, while a person next to the trolley switch is collectively responsible for the lives of those on the track. For me, moral responsibility exists in both situations (I part with Steve on this) but the nature of that responsibility prompts different courses of action.