Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[SaStrike]

I guess neither matters more, we all die anyway. I was just trying to show it could be consistent. But if some people can convince themselves that sometimes it's ok to kill one innocent person for the greater of mankind as a whole then that's fine too. If they genuinely thought they are doing the right thing then can't blame them. It is a dilemma after all.

You're not killing an innocent person in the trolley scenario. You're changing the tracks so that the least amount of people are killed.

Sorry, innocent has no place in the dilemma, no idea why i included that, my bad.

If you were standing on a set of tracks that was safe and someone pulls a lever causing a train to hit you, pretty sure it's murder.

---

Allowing vs doing.  It may be that we're inventing the dilemma entirely.  Since we're not actually asking about the morality of any of these given acts, but how they modify desert for the actor in question.

Allowing vs doing? What does that mean? Which scenario? At first it may seem that allowing is the trolley scenario and doing is the surgery scenario.

But i want to bring up this point again: you're also doing an act of pulling a lever in the trolley scenario. You're also allowing 5 people to die in the surgery scenario.

Is it because pulling a lever is easier than pulling organs? For a world class surgeon the two might be equally as easy.