#1 Thought experiment - "The Trolley Problem"

[Edwardo Piet]

I view every person as their own little world... I am no comfortable being a destroyer of worlds whether it's one world or five or whatever.

[Athene]

It depends on who the five were in relation to the one.

If they were 5 known jersey shore types (or worse) and the one guy is a Tesla, Einstein or eddison then the five get to buy the farm.

If their are 5 Christians and one Atheist douche who has a chance of changing his ways, then the 5 again die.

If this were a real situation then I'd try and 1/2 switch the track causing the trolley to derail even if their were more people inside as they would have some protection against the impact verse the people simply standing/tied (because who would just stand) on the tracks.

In real life, I suppose it's a given that most people would attempt to find a way to prevent a tragedy that would result in anyone dying, but in this 'what if' scenario you know nothing of these individuals' character and apparently only have time to quickly shove a man onto the tracks; deliberately causing his death. Or not, and five deaths inevitably occur as a result of the broken tracks. 

A fairly ridiculous hypothetical when taken at face value, but that's how it's presented.

[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.

[Gemini]

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.

You're escaping the thought experiment, though. Suppose someone presents you with the organ-harvesting scenario as a thought-experiment, wherein there is no room for serendipitous motorcycle crashes. Do you harvest the one person's organs, in order to save five people?

[bennyboy]

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.

You're escaping the thought experiment, though. Suppose someone presents you with the organ-harvesting scenario as a thought-experiment, wherein there is no room for serendipitous motorcycle crashes. Do you harvest the one person's organs, in order to save five people?

This is a hard question, because I can see the 1 but not the 5, and cannot make value judgments. Even with the original, if the train was on a path toward 5 old people, and the 1 was a cute little girl, it would be an easy decision-- bye bye old people.

The OP balances this-- you can at least see that you aren't choosing between a cute little girl and a bunch of old people. But the experiment you're talking about now doesn't balance values: I can SEE the person I'm killing, and this person now has a value, whereas the others are just numbers to me still. We all, every one of us, make this kind of decision every day: I choose to buy a new car instead of donating the money to buy mosquito nets for African children, etc. That's because those kids are hypotheticals (to my mind), and my car is real. However, if I was IN Africa, and could see the little waifs who would receive my mosquito nets, I think my decision-making would be very different.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Family before strangers.
-Young before old.
-Weak before strong.
-Many before few.

[Excited Penguin]

-Family before strangers.
-Young before old.
-Weak before strong.
-Many before few.

Not sure I agree with the third one completely. If many before few, then it would seem to be better that strong before weak.

EP

[Gemini]

The OP balances this-- you can at least see that you aren't choosing between a cute little girl and a bunch of old people.  But the experiment you're talking about now doesn't balance values: I can SEE the person I'm killing, and this person now has a value, whereas the others are just numbers to me still.  

Then suppose that, for the sake of this thought experiment, you can't see the person you're killing. Or, that you can see both the person you're killing and the people you're saving.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not sure I agree with the third one completely. If many before few, then it would seem to be better that strong before weak.

EP

The notion is that the strong are more able to help themselves.  Regardless..if you save the strong and I save the week, then we've got both angles covered.  Just as do-ers and non do-ers have both angles covered.

[Redbeard The Pink]

If the fat man is big enough to crash the train and I'm strong enough to hurl him, then what about using him like a giant bowling ball to crush all the people and derail the train into, like, a ravine with a village at the bottom? Wouldn't that kill the most?