Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[vulcanlogician]

The thought experiments are not equivalent. In the trolley scenario , you have control and responsibility over the thing that is causing the death(s). In the organ scenario, you don't have control and responsibility over the thing that is causing the deaths. What you have is control over one solution to the problem that may or may not be better than the problem. Nowhere in the organ scenario is there any responsibility to decide. 

To whomever chooses "consistent", that is disturbing, but in line with the morality one can glean from a totally naturalistic/deterministic worldview--which is to say an entirely subjective morality.

Exactly.

I personally would pull the lever to save the lives, but I would NOT conduct the organ transplants.

I agree that the thought experiments are not equivalent, but I disagree as to why. In both scenarios, there is a force which threatens the lives of five people. In both scenarios you can either NOT ACT which will result in the death of five people-- or you can ACT which will save five people but BECAUSE YOU ACTED one person will die. Why do you think you have "control and responsibility" in one situation and not the other? I would say in BOTH situations you have responsibility and (limited) control.

If you are going to argue that you don't have responsibility in the organ scenario, what is it essentially that makes it different from the runaway trolley?

---

I guess there is a third solution...