Is Jane Morally Obligated to Intervene in Train Dilemmas?

[Dale]

I think shouting a warning is sufficient in both cases. The principle I used to make that determination is that people are morally responsible for their own choices and they accept the consequences when they make the choice.

A. Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?

All 6 people are standing on train tracks. They were aware of the risk of being run over by a train when they chose to step on the tracks. It is not morally necessary for Jane to intervene to save the 5 as they deliberately took the risk of getting run over by the train, but if she did she would not be wrong since the one also took that same risk.

B. Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?

This is a little different. Here the 5 took the risk of death by choosing to stand on the track, but the one chose not to risk death. Not only is it not morally necessary for Jane to sacrifice the one to save the 5, but it would be wrong for her to do so.

 

[WaveJumper]

This is a little different. Here the 5 took the risk of death by choosing to stand on the track, but the one chose not to risk death. Not only is it not morally necessary for Jane to sacrifice the one to save the 5, but it would be wrong for her to do so.

What if those 5 were children and the fat guy was a 10 year old boy? How would morality tell you who has the right to live?

 

[Dale]

What if those 5 were children and the fat guy was a 10 year old boy? How would morality tell you who has the right to live?

They all have the right to live in all of these scenarios. (obviously)

 

[superwolf]

Opponents might assert that, since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, flipping the switch constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise the mad philosopher would be the sole culprit.

 

[Moridin]

Since these questions do not refer to values, they cannot be considered questions of morality. What if it was one Einstein versus five Hitlers? There is simply too little information to make any informed moral judgment.