I'm going to try to stay within the boundaries as you've drawn them. Thus, given this situation where, for instance, it may be impossible for any of the people to clear the tracks then the correct move is to flip the switch. Presuming that I have no reason to prefer the one person (it is not someone I know well) over the five then the utilitarian calculus is that since a choice *must* be made (and doing nothing still constitutes a choice in this situation) saving the five people outweighs the one.

I'm presuming this is taking place in this universe so if a train is on its way along a track and there are only two possible ways for it to go, it won't disappear, turn to smoke, or fly suddenly.

Cheers
Aj

But why should that, of all things, make us despair? We should not be at all surprised that one would prefer their own offspring over a stranger.

Cheers
Aj

As much as we may not wish it to be so, this is who we are. As it was put quite well a couple of hundred years ago:

"Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its
myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an
earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe,
who had no sort of connexion with that part of the world, would
be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful
calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very
strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he
would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of
human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could
thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was
a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the
effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of
Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And
when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane
sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his
business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with
the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had
happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befal himself
would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his
little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but,
provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound
security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and
the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object
less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own."

Cheers
Aj

I often waffle when push comes to shove your kid in front of the train.

Flip the switch already!

6 lives, if I read this correct, 5 saved if said switch if flipped. It's like traige, in a way, no right or wrong, just saving the most lives.

Close enough!

Precisely. I hate to go all Star Trek on folks but sometimes life really does hand you a Kobyashi Maru scenario. While we might wish that the world were filled with nothing but non-zero sum games, there really are zero-sum games and there really are scenarios where there is no 'good' choice there is only the least undesirable choice.

In our Panglossian world we would like to be able to teleport/levitate/disintegrate the train. In the real world, a train on a track will continue moving along the path of track until some outside influence causes it to change course. That means that if, for instance, there are only two tracks the train could be on and there is no physical way any of the workers on the track could get out of the way *someone* is going to die. That is my understanding of the scenario and if this scenario was inspired by an identical one in Justice by Michael Sandel then that was clearly spelled out in Sandel's scenario.

As a quick aside, I think that, as humans, we do get to say that there are things people should not do. I am perfectly comfortable saying that, for instance, while people are free to hold racist views they should not be allowed to have those racist views become the problem for others. For example, if one holds a racist view that blacks are intellectually inferior one should not be allowed to make that my problem in hiring or promotions. Whether the law provides that restraint or some ethical standard that says "my racism cannot enter into a professional context" is irrelevant to me. What matters is that someone is not in a position to make their racist views my problem.

Cheers
Aj

Does that apply even if they are working on the track? They should have, perhaps, foreseen the possibility that trains can go out of control and found a different field if they didn't want to be crushed by a train?

Cheers
Aj

So, let's say that it's not flipping a switch, instead it's running into a burning building. Or, even easier, calling the fire department to send someone to run into the burning building. Would you also leave that to fate, destiny or some divine being or another? Because the logic you appear to be using is that if some divine being wants you to live then you live and if some divine being wants you to die then you die. Either way it's no business of yours if you pass me by on the street and I'm bleeding to death, it appears you would be just as likely to leave that person to their 'fate' as you would to intervene and that your choice one way or another would be unpredictable (e.g. there is no 'rule' that you're operating under).

Cheers
Aj

I don't think a right action can be determined even with the railroad worker variable entered into the equation.

the bystander still has the knowledge that death will occur regardless of action or inaction on their part.

a numbers argument can be made for or against but i don't think shear numbers alone can dictate a good or right outcome.

i would still put accountability with the people on the tracks. i would assume as employees they had safety training and would be aware of the dangers surrounding them.

i don't think knowledge that a train can lose control and cause tragedy is cause for abandoning a certain line of work but if they didn't want to be crushed i would expect them to take every precaution for personal safety needed to avoid it.

[meant to multi quote with Always2Late, but failed]

I think the drowning guy joke bears on this. I'll synopsize it for anyone who hasn't heard it.

Guy drowning, another guy comes along in a boat and tries to save him, but the drowning guy says, No, the Lord will save me. This happens two more times: guys in boats, but the drowning guy says No, the Lord will save me.
Finally, the guy drowns and goes to Heaven and there's the Lord. Guy says, Lord, why didn't you save me? And the Lord says, "Hey, I sent three boats!"

One may be the means of Fate--whatever one does. How then does one "decide"... or does one?

No moral arithmetic when it comes to people's lives. I wouldn't flip the switch.

But isn't that as much a choice as flipping the switch? Barring some change in the laws of physics, *someone* is going to die. The question is whether we would choose for five people to die or one person to die. No matter what choice we make, someone dies though. So flipping the switch is a choice to take a positive action resulting in the death of one person and not flipping the switch is a choice to take a negative (i.e. a null action) action resulting in the deaths of five people.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something.

Cheers
Aj

RE: Semantics/Dreadgeek posts

This is leading us to the question in the Jesus and the boats joke. How much does the person consider themselves to be an "agent"? Which really gets at self-determination vs. God's plan. If God's plan is that you act, and save 5 while sacrificing 1, then you act. If the plan is that you don't, you don't.

If that is a person's stance, then morality becomes a fiction.

I would flip the switch to save the 5 people. Then I would have to go talk with a few close friends about what I did.

I would take this even one step further:

"It is commonly supposed that it is entirely exemplary to adopt the moral teachings of one's own religion without question, because--to put it simply--it is the word of God (as interpreted, always, by the specialists to whom one has delegated authority). I am urging, on the contrary, that anybody who professes that a particular point of moral conviction is not discussable, not debatable, not negotiable, simply because it is the word of God, or because the Bible says so, or because "that is what all Muslims [Hindus, Sikhs ...] believe, and I am a Muslim [Hindu, Sikh...], should be seen to be making it impossible for the rest of us to take their views seriously, excusing themselves from the moral conversation, inadvertently acknowledging that their own views are not conscientiously maintained and deserve no further hearing.

The argument for this is straightforward. Suppose I have a friend, Fred, who is (in my carefully considered opinion) always right. If I tell you I'm against stem-cell research because "my friend Fred says it's wrong and that's all there is to it," you will just look at me as if I was missing the point of the discussion. This is supposed to be a consideration of reasons, and I have not given you a reason that I in good faith could expect you to appreciate. Suppose you believe that stem-cell research is wrong because that is what God has told you. Even if indeed exist and has, personally, told you that stem-cell research is wrong--you cannot reasonably expect others who do not share your faith or experience to accept this as a reason. You are being unreasonable in taking your stand. The fact that your faith is so strong that you cannot do otherwise just shows (if you really can't) that you are disabled for moral persuasion, a sort of robotic slave to a meme that you are unable to evaluate. And if you reply that you can but you won't consider reasons for and against your conviction (because it is God's word, and it would sacrilegious even to consider whether it might be in error), you avow your willful refusal to abide by the minimal conditions of rational discussion. Either way, your declarations of your deeply held views are posturings that are out of place, part of the problem, not part of the solution, and we others will just have to work around you as best we can." (Daniel Dennett)

My view has become even more pessimistic than Dennett's.

Cheers
Aj

Absolutely! It is interesting that you mention being a doer. Back when I lived in the Bay Area, I had a tendency to respond to situations. For example, I once caught a shoplifter running out of the Circuit City on Van Ness when the security guy let the shoplifter slip through his hands and I tackled him.

In that same period, I ended up saving a guy's life who was owner of a little corner market who got shot outside the store. My military training kicked in and by the time that the actual first responders got there, I had organized my housemates so that one was keeping his wife calm, one was holding the flashlight so I could see where I needed to have pressure, one was doing something else I don't remember and one was inside the store watching over things. The cops and the paramedics asked who had put all of the organization together and they said "her". It was at that moment that I realized what I had just done and then the shakes hit me because I realized "oh my goodness, I think I just saved this guy's life". I didn't have time to think when I first heard the gunshots, there was only enough time to act and think about it later.

Sometimes there's only enough time to respond to a situation, not to deliberate our way through it.

Cheers
Aj

Two questions
 

I have a question for those who have said either that they wouldn't flip the switch because it is unpredictable what would happen if the train went either way (e.g. we can't know that if someone was hit by a several ton train that they would die).

Given the weight of a train compared to the weight of a human being, given the mass of a train compared to the mass of a human being, given that humans are made of more fragile stuff than trains, and given that it is a fact that any object in motion will continue to stay in motion unless it is acted upon by another force, why do you believe that we can't know the most likely outcome? I'm not saying the definite outcome--it is possible that, for instance, you could jump from a balloon at the upper-most edge of the Earth's atmosphere without the use of a parachute and wind up living to tell the tale. It is *possible* but the most likely result of such a jump is that your bones would be liquified by the impact and you would die. So since the most likely result of train plowing into one or more bodies is that those bodies will be broken beyond repair, why is that little bit of uncertainty sufficient to make you choose the non-action which results in the deaths of five people?

Cheers
Aj