I disagree.
I don’t feel ethically compelled to follow every law. Taking an oath, however, would ethically compel me into (or out of) certain actions.
I will offer one distinction that I think is important. To save the five people in the second situation you have to kill the patient, it is the means to save the five others. In the first situation it is just a condition of the situation that you will have to kill the guy. It would work just as well to save the five workers if you deverted the train and the guy wasn’t there. In the second situation you can’t take the guy’s organs without killing him. the problem in the second situation is we are looking at a person as a means to an end.
Do all doctors take the Hippocratic oath?
Would an oath compel you to act in a way that you thought was unethical?
I don’t understand - you’re making choices in ALL situations. Either to act or not to act. The results are the same based on YOUR choice ---- either one person dies or five people die. I think the difference is that in the last instance your hands get bloody - in the second you pull a switch. Genetically, I’d wager that is a big difference. One “feels” simply worse than the other.
Ken, when you get the answer to those two questions, you may be ready for the big question.
Actually, I’ve been waiting, since I joined this board, for a chance to link to that webpage. I would like to thank my Senior Philosophy thesis advisor from college for introducing me to the philosophical humor webpage (this is an older page, some links may be broken)
Or Hell, Kel even. I just noticed, just now, that it was Kel, not Ken.
Sorry, but I don’t think so. Murder is an act with the intent to cause death or great bodily harm which causes death or great bodily harm.
If you make the choice to save 5 people, your intent is not to kill the one person. Your intent is to save 5 other people.
- Peter Wiggen
BTW I would pull the switch and save the most lives (because it’s my choice). I would not harvest the organs and save more lives (because it’s the choice of the “donor” to give up or not give up his organs).
I think the distinction (as a I mentioned in my earlier post) is that it’s NOT your choice in both situations.
(1) YOUR choice - pull the switch and save 5, sacrifice 1. Don’t pull the switch and kill 5, save 1. Whatever. It’s your choice.
(2) Organ Donor’s choice. We’re calling this “your” choice. Would you sacrifice this guy? But that’s not really the issue with organs. It’s the ORGAN DONOR’S CHOICE.
- Peter Wiggen
Wrong, you intended to changed the path of the train. You knew the train would be very likely to cause great bodily harm.
I think that’s right. That’s the ethical difference cast in a nutshell. 
Correct. I intended to change the path of the train. And in doing so to save 5 people in its path.
But we’re arguing my intent. As you stated, I “intended to [change] the path of the train,” not I intended to kill someone.
- Peter Wiggen
I would start scratching my head and would continue to do that until whatver had to happen happened! Damn!
You got that from the latest issue of Discover magazine didn’t you? They had a whole article about the psychology of ethics/morals. Most people choose to do nothing and kill five instead of taking direct action which will lead to the death of one. Sitting here on my butt I’d actively kill that one guy instead of five but if I was actually in that situation I don’t know what I’d do.
Color me stupid. I’m surprised there is even a question about these two situations. PeteWiggens answer is absolutely correct. Are some of you actually endorsing involuntary organ donation leading to the death of the donor?? :eek:
Take the first scenario to the extreme: You piloting a plane about to crash. You are the pilot in command, you can continue on the course you are following and crash into a schoolyard, or you can veer off and crash into a field with a single farmer in it. One or many, I know what all the pilots I know would choose.
Regarding situation #1, because it’s the simpler of the two…
For all those who’ve said that you’d let the five die, because then you didn’t do anything to kill anyone, I’d like to ask this: The one person is on the left, the five on the right. The switch is currently on the left. You accidentally switch it to the right, by bumping it when your hand twitches or something.* No worries; there’s still about a minute before the train gets to the junction. Your hand is on the switch, you’re about to push it back over to the left. Suddenly, you get a call on the radio explaining that there is a runaway train, just like in the OP. If you put it back where you meant it to be anyway, one person dies. If you just refuse to touch it, now that you know lives are at stake, five people die. Do you still let the five die?
(Let’s call this 1A)
*I’m sure this isn’t realistic. That’s irrelevant.
Knowing my ass is going to get sued regardless of what happens in scenario 1, I’d save the five people because I’d rather have one distraught family chasing me with lawyers rather than five.
As far as scenario 2, wouldn’t that be, oh, I dunno, murder?
I love law and economics.
This is an issue of “Act” utilitarianism versus Rule utilitarianism.
While violating the rules (eg. Hippocratic oath, “don’t divert trains”) might bring about greater good in specific instances, widespread well-intentioned breaking of rules would more likely cause greater suffering overall.
Nor is the doctor since he probably didn’t take the Hippocratic oath being as it has very little relevence in modern medicine.
Marc