Posted: Aug 23, 2017 8:48 am
scott1328 wrote:zoon wrote:scott1328 wrote:I wouldn't throw the switch nor would I push the fat guy off the bridge.
If someone else had thrown the switch or pushed the fat guy, would you consider that person should be sentenced as for murder (in a jurisdiction without the death penalty)? Even without the (somewhat illogical) distinction between throwing switches and pushing people, it's of interest that most people around the world seem to share the moral intuition that killing one person intentionally in order to save five doesn't necessarily count as murder, but you may not share that intuition.
Since I did not create the situation (as described in the thought experiment) and am not the operator of the trolley, I am mere witness to the events. If I insert myself into the situation, I take on the consequences of any actions I take. I become directly responsible for a death by throwing the switch. Just as I become responsible for a death by pushing the fat man off the bridge.
If I were on a jury, I suspect I would not convict the person who did throw the switch (thus killing 1 to save 5). But, I would convict the person who pushed the person from the bridge (thus killing 1 to save 5).
But I dispute that the situations as described are equivalent. In the first situation all persons are in peril. In the second situation only the five on the track are in peril.
I do agree that there’s something to be said for unknowledgeable outsiders staying out of this sort of situation, we are quite likely just to make matters worse. Perhaps it should be specified that the person making the decision knows what they are doing. As in my answer to Thommo, I’m drawing attention to Joshua Green’s comment after describing the trolley problem: “And, yes, we’re assuming this will definitely work”.
You say that if you were sitting on a jury, you suspect that you would make the same distinction as most people, and convict the pusher of the fat man, but not the thrower of the switch. Like Thommo, you say that the reason for your decision is that the two situations are not equivalent. I am interested to note that the difference which you say is the crucial one, that the person on the siding is in more immediate danger than the fat man on the bridge, is quite different from the one to which Thommo refers (that pushing the fat man will definitely kill him and may not work, while throwing the switch, even if it doesn’t work, won’t kill anyone extra). I’ve heard this is a feature of this particular ethical thought experiment: many people feel strongly that pushing the fat man is wrong while throwing the switch is probably OK, but they tend to come up with very different reasons why. I would dispute your reason as well as Thommo’s. The person on the siding is not necessarily in any danger until the switch is thrown, while the fat man on the bridge is evidently standing above the trolley tracks without a high railing to prevent him from going over. If a CCTV camera showed the fat man was too close to the edge for safety, would you be less inclined to convict the person who decided to give him a final shove to save five, instead of pulling him back?