As for the saving the family member against a stranger, the utiliarians would say, "What entitles you to overturn the dictates of impartial and pure reason?" In other words, familial relations play no rational part in morality or moral calculation.

The other problem I have with utilitarianism, is the same ireconcilable problem I have with all ethics. Projected good, in this case happiness. I suppose in the train scenario we can assume that staying alive would make people happy. But utilitarianism/ists have to define the greater good somehow and then it is projected upon the 'innocent'. Among a group of fatalists the greater good might be to do nothing in the train scenario. (note: one need not be religious to be fatalist)

One problem I have with that is that the utilitarian has somehow forgotten that the one person is also innocent, and the lives of the five people are individual, and those individual lives are not more valuable than the life of another innocent person. I would therefore try and stop the train to save all six people, but I would not pull the lever and kill the one person.

By pulling that lever I have assumed that one stranger's life is worth more than another stranger's life, and I have killed one innocent person to save five. That doesn't seem right at all.

Another problem is this -- let's say that the one person was my mother or child. I would most certainly pull the lever to save my mother or child. I would feel guilty in the end, but I would fell worse if I let a loved one die. Utilitarianism doesn't allow any room for the recognition of the human value of family or friendship in this type of a situation.

In the thought experiment, you can only pull the lever or not pull the lever. There is no stopping the train. Either one person dies, or five. That no one dies is not an option - that's the power of the thought experiment.

No: by pulling the lever you have assumed that the lives of five strangers is more important than the life of one stranger.

Utilitarianism does allow for the recognition of placing value on family and friends: utilitarianism simply states that these values are irrelevant when making moral decisions. That instead of making moral decisions based on personal biases, we should make moral decisions based on what promotes the greatest amount of happiness.

If I wasn't able to stop the train and save everyone I wouldn't pull the lever at all.

If you pull the lever you are causing the death of the one person because the train was originally going to hit the five people. In that sense, you are killing that one person by pulling the lever and causing the train to hit them.

And thus kill all six people which would even be worse.

But that is exactly the way utilitarianism does not work. You cannot simply look at one half, regardless of the other but they have to be compared. Just saying that you kill one would totally falsify your action since it has to be seen before the background that you saved five as well. So for all I care declare that you saved four persons instead of five. And even if you did not ask me, I surely think that it would be more correct concerning moral measurements to "kill" my family member to save the other people. But would I do it? Hello no.

If I didn't direct the train towards the track with the one person then it would continue on its original course, thus killing the five people. The one person would live and the five people would die. The moral responsibility lies not with me, but with the person who put those people on the track in the first place. Moral responsibility would only lie with me if I were to redirect the train towards the one person instead of the five people.

Would not your very inaction give you some moral stake in the situation? Can't lack of action be just as morally right or wrong as an action?

Exactly my point. I have assumed that the life of one stranger is less important than the lives of five strangers. If you pull the lever you are causing the death of the one person because the train was originally going to hit the five people. In that sense, you are killing that one person by pulling the lever and causing the train to hit them.

Didn't I basically say that utilitarianism does not recognize human values when making moral decisions?

Do you think it would be right or wrong to pull the lever so that the train hits the five people instead of your family member or friend?

Lack of action can only be morally right or wrong if the agent is personally responsible for causing the situation.

Yes, but by not pulling the lever you are killing five people to save one. So: should you A) kill one person, or, B) kill five people?

You said: "Utilitarianism doesn't allow any room for the recognition of the human value of family or friendship in this type of a situation." Which is not the case. Utilitarianism does not deny the recognition that you will probably love your mother more than any five strangers. Instead, Utilitarianism says that this hierarchy of humanity, based on personal affection of the agent, should not be considered in the process of making a moral decision.

Wrong. By allowing the five to perish in favor of your friend, you have allowed your personal (egotistical) interests to trump moral interests. Those five people all have friends and families. The loss of those five will universally cause more pain and suffering than the pain and suffering you endure at the loss of your one friend.

I disagree. Further, I do not believe that you agree with this statement.

For example: you walk by a pond and notice a small child drowning. If the above statement is true, then you can decide not to save the child and stroll on by without having acted immorally. However, I think we can all agree that if we walk by a pond and see a small child drowning that we have a moral responsibility to save the child. You did not cause the situation, the situation being that a child is drowning, yet you still have a moral responsibility to act.

The fact that utilitarianism works only in the most artificial and oversimplified circumstances, and even then objectionbly, tell us it is pathetically ill-equiped as an ethical system with which to deal with the moral complexities and ambiguitys of the real world.

Essentially, utilitarianism is the way to evaluate decisions, not the way to make them. Just as the process of evaluating music is remarkably different from the process of creating music.

If the five people tied up on the track were Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, a serial killer, a psychopath, and a half human half demon spawn of Satan, and the 1 person is Mother Teresa or Gandhi, then the utilitarians would say you should let the train slam the five people, because in the long run, the one living produces more happiness than the five.