#1 Thought experiment - "The Trolley Problem"

[bennyboy]

I would NOT be responsible for killing the five people. That would be due to a set of circumstances set into motion PRIOR to my arrival, that I was unable to prevent. Committing an act of cold-blooded murder towards an innocent person in order to rescue another or others does NOT constitute saving a life in my opinion; It's simply trading a life. Sure, five people could be "saved" if I murder one. So what? 

So 5 > 1. One death is bad, but 5 are worse.

See, here's the thing-- you think by not flipping a switch, you are absolved of guilt because you haven't "done anything." But you have-- you've made a decision to end those 5 people's lives rather than save them. Making decisions is doing something too.

Even more people could be saved by plucking some poor schmuck off the street, murdering him, and harvesting his vital organs. Is that acceptable?  Would one be 'letting' potential recipients die or more dramatically put, be 'killing them' by simply leaving this man alone and allowing him to live out the fucking life he was given? I don't think so. 

I already asked you about how things work in hospitals in more realistic scenarios than this, in actual real life. I'll go back and see if you answered.

My belief is that if the situation is sufficiently complex, then one can allow for the effect of hope in the moral decision-making. In the case of organ harvesting, there's an alternative-- "hope" that someone dies in a motorcycle crash or something soon enough for recipients to be saved by his organs.

In the OP scenario, however, either you will "let" 5 people die, or you will "make" 1 person die: there's very little complexity there. You are required to make a decision-- and once you make your decision about what to do, you are acting with intent. You INTEND to let the 5 die so you don't have to cause the 1 death. And death with intent is still murder, even if you don't pull the trigger or administer the poison, or tie the people to the train tracks.

What if I saw a child drowning, and decided I didn't want to get my new suit wet? Could I say, "Yeah, I saw the kid, but I didn't start the process of drowning, so his death isn't on my hands." Of course not-- decisions are active process, and actions made on decisions demonstrate intent. . . in this case, criminal intent.