I noticed I kept switching between several principles. Possibly triggered by the details of the problem. Some of the principles:
1. If you're able to act, you are already responsible for the outcome. Inaction is a choice too. There's no intrinsic moral difference between pulling the lever or not.
2. Acting from a position of ignorance is irresponsible. Better not to act than to take the risk of making the situation worse. (This contradicts #1.)
3. The person who tied these people to the track is the one who really carries the responsibility to this tragedy, not me.
All three of these are valid, and yet contradictory to some extent.
Apparently I solved philosophy at the cost of 59 lives. Not sure it was worth that sacrifice.
Imagine being at a railyard at the time of a crash and being seen throwing a switch in front of a moving train.
There’s no real-world case where that person is not considered responsible.
Not to mention that trains really cannot go over switches at speed. A runaway trolley would probably derail at the switch if it was set on the side track.
Exactly. In real life, I'd try to derail the train, and then call the police so they can figure out who tied these people to the track. The problem is a very artificial situation, and therefore hard to apply to real world ethics.
That's clearly a reasonable assumption, since a trolley will kill people underneath at any speed, no matter how low (the slower, the more horrible the death will be though…)
Only in the narrow situation where you know all possible outcomes and have a sufficient time to consider them. In the real world, given a limited amount of time and ignorance of many details, inaction is not even remotely the same as action.
Not sure why you state #2 contradicts #1. If you are in a position of ignorance, choosing inaction (unless and until said ignorance can be rectified, anyway) is the correct action.
1. If you're able to act, you are already responsible for the outcome. Inaction is a choice too. There's no intrinsic moral difference between pulling the lever or not.
2. Acting from a position of ignorance is irresponsible. Better not to act than to take the risk of making the situation worse. (This contradicts #1.)
3. The person who tied these people to the track is the one who really carries the responsibility to this tragedy, not me.
All three of these are valid, and yet contradictory to some extent.
Apparently I solved philosophy at the cost of 59 lives. Not sure it was worth that sacrifice.