(January 25, 2018 at 1:35 pm)polymath257 Wrote: It shows that the societal position of the person who would die is a significant aspect of our moral judgments. A brilliant scientist who cures cancer is valued more highly than the average and a condemned criminal less so. So it isn't just the humanity of these people, but their status that we use to arrive at our conclusions.
In no way was societal position a factor in my choices for your variant thought experiments.
You said that the doctor on the alternate track had a cure for cancer. Consequentialism would be the only reason to actually pull the switch in the first place. But when you add the "cure for cancer" caveat, consequentialism says that it would save more lives to let the five people die. With the other example, you said the organ donor had already been sentenced to death. Why not, in that case, make use of his organs because he is going to die anyway?
If you wanted to make societal position the focus of your examples, you should have worded things differently.
