Send the train to be derailed, then go kill the man tied to the tracks myself. Everybody dies.
Then hunt down whoever came up with this "dilemma" originally and kill HIM. Slowly.
Does doing nothing qualify as "sacrificing," though? Not saying you're wrong or right; just curious about your reasoning on this.Switch the tracks. I am opposed to sacrificing people against their will, as DifferentDrummr mentioned that aspect several posts ago, but not switching the tracks is sacrificing a ton of people for this one person. Not acting is not only murder from my perspective, which is inexcusable in my mind, it's murder because you're a damn coward, which is both inexcusable and pathetic.
I wouldn't regret flipping that switch for an instant.
Does doing nothing qualify as "sacrificing," though? Not saying you're wrong or right; just curious about your reasoning on this.
Switch the tracks. I am opposed to sacrificing people against their will, as DifferentDrummr mentioned that aspect several posts ago, but not switching the tracks is sacrificing a ton of people for this one person. Not acting is not only murder from my perspective, which is inexcusable in my mind, it's murder because you're a damn coward, which is both inexcusable and pathetic.
I wouldn't regret flipping that switch for an instant.
It still could be a train full of Liberals, progressives and other socialist types instead of people. Of course, you don't know if the body on the tracks is a person or a leftist either.
If you do nothing, it is because you are not willing to kill a single person who has been tied to the tracks in order to save an unknown number of people, possibly a handful, possibly a hundred or more. Doing nothing is definitely sacrificing these people, in this situation.
Utilitarian choice is to flip the switch. As much as I like to think I would pull that switch, I am not a Vulcan and would probably let it go on. Inaction vs action.
I would probably justify my regret by saying there was nothing that I could have done and it's the train companies fault.
I also think that when it came down to the line, more people who said they would switch the tracks would be unable to do it either.
If you do nothing, it is because you are not willing to kill a single person who has been tied to the tracks in order to save an unknown number of people, possibly a handful, possibly a hundred or more. Doing nothing is definitely sacrificing these people, in this situation.
Technically, if you flip that switch, you're murdering the person on the tracks, no matter how you look at it.
No. It is logic. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or one.
Murder isn't necessarily illogical.
When "Sophie" made her "choice"....did she murder the child they took away?
Not quite the same: the SS officer could have spared the child without her knowledge. A train moving at full speed can't be stopped in time.
Who the **** built this train and why aren't the tracks fixed?
In your scenario, a layperson has no knowledge of how many, or even if any, people will die.
If a train with hundreds of people on board goes off the rails and flips on its side, it's a pretty safe guess that - at the very least - there will be a handful of deaths and quite a few severe injuries, wouldn't you say?
Don't forget that a train of this size has the kinetic energy of a small atomic weapon.
And I have never heard your assessment of a train/energy/atomic weapon. I would never has assumed such a thing, and I dont even buy it now without proof. It may be but I'd never have thought of it.
All it takes is a little math. Start with the weight of the train, add the weights of its passengers and crew, multiply by the square of its speed, and divide by 2 to get the kinetic energy.