Quote:
Originally Posted by Semantics
You didn't miss anything. It is as much of a choice as flipping the switch but one I feel I could live with and one I could not. Unless I was the person who would be killed I could not flip the switch and cause the death of a person even to save five other people.
This isn't the first time I've had a similar scenario posed to me, and I can't make a different decision and feel comfortable with it. I have to reject utilitarianism in this situation. Sometimes good intentions lead to horrible consequences. In that outlined scenario we have a basic amount of information and it's not enough for me. We know that by the numbers there will be less death, but do we really know if this means the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people?
I understand where my position breaks from the most popular and seemingly logical position, and I also understand the arguments against my response.
I'm not sure why you addressed me here because I said nothing of factoring in God's plan.
Is sacrificing a person using them as a means to an end?
The person standing near the switch had nothing to do with causing anyone to be on the tracks. They are all there of their own free will. The fact that a larger quantity of life would be saved doesn't take away the fact that I am now responsible for ending one life, even if in terms of numbers the human race comes out ahead.
|
But Semantic, if you don't flip the switch and five people die you are now responsible for the five people who died. No matter *what* you do, you are going to be responsible for some number of people dying. The question is whether you are more comfortable with that being one person or multiple people.
To see why this is the case, consider the alternative. Let's say you flip the switch but the switch is broken and the train plows into the five people, killing them all. You made an attempt to save their lives but were thwarted by a mechanical failure. In that case, no one could say you were responsible because without foreknowledge that the switch was broken and without the means to fix the switch in a timely manner, there's nothing you could have done to prevent the switch from malfunctioning.
On the other hand, if you could do something that would save the lives of five people and you chose not to, then would it not be reasonable to argue that your inaction constituted an action whose consequences are foreseeable? Again, it is the difference between driving drunk and killing someone and having a mechanical failure and killing someone. Is it possible that you could drive drunk and not kill someone? Yes, happens all the time. However, if you drive drunk and you kill someone it would be very difficult for someone to argue that it was not foreseeable that diminished capacity would not be a consequence of your drinking to excess.
So I don't think that not pulling the switch actually gets you around the responsibility of causing deaths. If you were not fast enough to get to the switch, you couldn't be held responsible. If the switch fails, you couldn't be held responsible. If, however, you were within comfortable reach of the switch and you chose not to use it, given that the likely consequences are foreseeable you would be responsible for the deaths of five people.
I understand that one consequence is because of your inaction but you had the means to effect a different outcome and you chose not to take that action and in doing so, you chose the death of five people.
Cheers
Aj