Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I don't personally think that consequentialist ethics are final, I only illustrated how..confined solely to consequentialist ethics, killing one to save six is a better trade than killing one to save five and in the process turning hospitals into a den of vultures, lol.

I also think that "the maximally good outcome" can be superceded, but even if it couldn't, the desert of either actor (or action) is not and would not become equivalent by fiat. I can see why, for example..killing himself would not be an acceptible solution to the doctor. I don't expect him to make that decision....no moreso than I would expect the rolley switch thrower to lay down his own life if..for example, he could gum up the works and save errybody with his bones.

I simply note that, from a purely consequentialist standpoint from numbers, that would be the way to go..and since the one is in a situation in which that option is present and the other is not..it;s more an example of predictably compromised agency than of moral inconsistency.

I, personally, would kill 50k to save one.....lol. To be honest, if I;d committed to saving one single person..and everyone on earth was trying to kill that person..the killings wouldn;t end until I was dead, because I;d keep killing in retribution if they managed to off that one person. I'm not big on consequentialism in killing. I'm duty bound, not outcome seeking. Besides, somebody has to water the grass, amiright?