We're reading about John Stuart Mill and Kant in school, and I thought I might bring this up. Keep in mind that I'm no expert on either Mill or Kant (even less so with Kant, as you will see later in the post), and some other people will definitely bring up more information on the two. I can't exactly search for past threads, and I don't know what views were stated regarding this topic. Go ahead and close this if you deem it necessary.

To start off, here are a few scenarios. Try to think completely outside of the box with these; the answers to these questions do not necessarily have to be limited to what is given. Lastly, I can understand why you might think that this is pointless and why the scenarios are pointless, but instead, try to think about why answers might differ between scenarios. Perhaps we'll be able to obtain more insight from those answers.

1. There is a train that is about to hit 5 people. You are standing next to a switch that will change the path of the train, but by doing so, the train will hit 1 person. What do you do?

2. You are the conductor of the train that is about to hit 5 people. The brakes are shot. You can turn the train to a different track, but by doing so the train will hit 1 other person. What do you do?

3. You are standing at the train station. You see the train coming at a high speed, and you also notice 5 workers on the tracks. The train is on the course to hit them. Next to you is a considerably overweight person. He is leaning over the tracks. If he were to be "accidentally" pushed onto the tracks, there is a chance that the 5 workers would be saved (I'm not trying to jab at overweight people. This is just the scenario, however farfetched it may be, and it is merely hypothetical). What do you do?

Now for some text:

I'm sure that many of us have heard the phrase "the ends justify the means", meaning that the method (means) does not matter, as long as you reach your final goal (ends). This is Mill's belief, and he applies this belief to utilitarianism, "the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure" (Wikipedia). One of the main principles of utilitarianism is the Greatest Happiness Principle. Essentially, the goal is to provide the highest happiness for the majority of the people, whilst doing no harm, and according to Mill, it doesn't matter how you get there. Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, believes that the means is incredibly important, and we can make moral judgements based on the person's own intentions. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end" (Kant).

What do you think about this, and how does it relate to the scenarios given above?

I will report useless comments.

Huck

Edit: You don't have to read all of it. You can just answer to the scenarios if you want, and if you do, try to draw on other knowledge/experiences.

Awesome thread man.
However unlikely these scenarios may be, if you stand idly and do nothing while five people die when you had the chance to save them, you'll just end up looking like the bad guy.
If you flick the switch/push the fat guy/turn the train, you'd still look bad, but you could always plead that the ends justified the means.
:V
That's what I'd do at least.

I'm largely a consequentialist, but of course - the world is not black and white. Each individual case is different, and not all means are justified by their ends - given the amount of perspectives.


In first 2 cases I would definitely pick 1 death over 5.
The last case drastically reduces my chances of success, with added possibility of me actually killing 6 people instead of 5. Therefore I wouldn't push the guy.

In a court of law (American), the flicking of the switch, the pushing of the man, and the turning of the train would probably all be considered as manslaughter because you made that decision. Would you feel the same if you ended up going to jail for that decision?

On the other hand, if you don't do anything and let the 5 people die, you would be able to escape those severe consequences to an extent. I see what you're saying; you would be a guilty bystander if you didn't do anything, but would you be able to live with that?


Same thing. It would probably be seen as you killing the one person rather than you saving 5.


So say, hypothetically, the man has enough stopping power to slow down the train and that there was a very likely chance that the 5 workers would be able to escape in time. According to your previous statement, you would push the man in, correct?

Obviously scenario three directly correlates to the likelyhood of one man's body on a train track slowing the train enough to allow the five people to escape.
If it is almost certain to save the people, then I'd do it.
But according to my knowledge of fat people and trains, it's not very likely that his body mass would be enough to slow a train, so I probably wouldn't do it.
Hell, even if I was 100% certain that the fat guy would buy the people time, and I say and feel like I would push him onto the tracks, when it really gets down to the time of crisis, I'm not sure if I would have the stones to react that quickly and push the fatty.

In that case I probably still wouldn't push him because I doubt the court would buy my good intentions. I don't necesarrily want to be martyr for 5 people.

However, if I knew for a fact that killing an innocent fattie will save 5 others, and I had to choose what I deem right, I would push him off.

@Huck
Actually, (in Australia anyway) doing any of the option except for 2 and doing nothing would constitute as murder. Manslaughter is when there is no intention to kill or do anyone grievous bodily harm. As you intended to push him / press the button and you were full aware of the outcomes then that would constitue murder. (In Australia) You'd get a mininum 14 years jail for that.
Option 2 would be a case of professional criminal negligence or muder, depending on your decision. If you're in the position of option 2, you're pretty much fucked, whatever you do. If you change the track then it's murder. If you do nothing then it's professional criminal negligence. You'd do jailtime either way.
If you do nothing however, (as you aren't a professional employed by the railroad company) you would not be charged with criminal negligence or any form of homicide. You'd receive no jailtime.
So, legally, the best thing to do would be to do nothing.
Morally, for me anyway, I'd do nothing. Killing someone is killing someone. Guilt + jail.

Rather then doing nothing and witnessing the deaths of five people you could of saved? one death < five deaths

^

Wouldn't you feel more morally reprehensible letting five people die?
Seems like more guilt to me, but like I said before, I don't know if I would have the stones to go through with it if the time came.
:<