Trolley Problem & Ethics

This! Well said.

I was thinking the same in each scenario but couldn't really explain it.

 

Being the consequentialist i am, i would follow the telelogical approach, best outcome for the smallest price.

For scenario One: I would flick the switch, saving 5 lives at the cost of one beats the opposite.
Scenario Two: I would push the fat man, same scenario as the switch basically, minus a change here and there.
Scenario Three: Following the same approach, I would kill the man to save the five patients.

Yet these questions are only hypothetical, and if i was the one who had to actually make the descision the pressure would probably alter my choices.

Anywhom, thats just my two cents worth.

 

I would not pull the switch, not push the fat man, and not kill a guy for an organ.

No human life is greater than another human life, and no amount of human lives are greater than one human life. There is no such thing as a group, a group is only a bunch of individuals all put into one place. So to sacrifice one in favor of the group is just like sacrificing an individual for the benefit of another individual. We are all single entities, the idea of a group is an illusion.

For the first scenario, imagine you were one of the 5 that is tied to the track but imagine that each of the 5 was a mile apart and you did not know that there were 4 more people on the track. Thinking that there was another person on a different track, you would definitely value your life over theirs and hope that someone hits the switch to make the train go the other way. Now pretend that you and the other 4 were now grouped together. You still only care about your own life and you value your life over the guy on the other track but now you can use the idea that saving 5 is better than saving 1 as a tool for saving your own ass. Now all of a sudden killing the other guy for the sake of your own life (and a few others) seems logical and just, when in fact it is not.