A train is speeding down a track towards 5 men who are stuck in place. You are stand on a bridge above the tracks next to a very obese man. If you push him off the bridge it will stop the train and save the 5 men. Do you do it?
That would make me a murderer, I don't think I could sleep at night.
If that dude is fat enough to stop a train, he's fat enough to bring down the whole bridge and kill us all. He's for sure big enough I won't be able to move him anyway. But no, I would not even if I could.
As previously stated the weight is just added to make it somewhat reasonable it has no other significance
Still no. I'd kill a bad guy to save a good guy, but I'm not killing what as far as I know is just another good guy to save some guys dumb enough to get stuck on the tracks. Their action, their consequence.
What if being on the tracks was forced agains them
They should've fought harder. I'm not deliberately killing an innocent just to save somebody else. The situation would exist without my presence, and my being there is not going to change it.
So if the blame is equally on the 5 and the 1 for being on the tracks wouldn't that cause you to save the 5?
It's not about blame, it's about personal responsibility. It is not up to me to decide who lives or dies, or whether a few is more valuable than a one. Without a good reason to cause harm to a person, like self defense, I'm not doing it.
So do you think because he's fat he's worth lesser or because it's 1 vs 5?
He is obese "to stop the train" not because he is less important to the world
Because you're infringing on the rights of the fat man and also using him solely as a means by which to stop the death of the five, I'd say this is not morally permissible.
Are you not doing that by pulling the lever?
Well, I wouldn't pull the level either, but the different between the two is that the fat man is a direct means: if it weren't for his existence your plan wouldn't work. If the random guy on the secondary track hadn't been there, it wouldn't matter.
If you choose not to take the life of 1 then you are allowing the death of 5
Is turning the other way any more permissible?
One is murder on my hands, and the other is not.
How do you make that distinction? By pulling the lever you are condemning him to death as much as pushing him off a bridge
Not exactly. A court would likely make such a distinction as well. One is directly causation of an end result. The other is an indirect result of a direct action taken.
That's how I look at it.
This is not court. This is your own moral reasoning. Does the pull of a lever vs the push of a man which has the same result really change your decision?
It does make a difference to me. However - I've never been in a situation of that sort to know what I would actually do.
And really, if the person is so morbidly obese so as to stop a train - I would need a crane to get them over the edge.
No because I wouldn't be trying to save the 5 men, i would be killing the one
Not trying to kill the 5 men? That's the whole purpose of pushing him.