Interesting dilemma, however in the train switch, you still make a concious choise if you choose not to choose, because you are aware of the problem at hand, anything else is only a big fat lie to youself.

One should never save/sacrifice a person/people to save others, that leads to curroption, trade ..selfish gain.

Interesting dilemma, however in the train switch, you still make a concious choise if you choose not to choose, because you are aware of the problem at hand, anything else is only a big fat lie to youself.

One should never save/sacrifice a person/people to save others, that leads to curroption, trade ..selfish gain.

I was going to say something similar but then it got me thinking that these questions are a little silly and that is why they are difficult to manage.

It's like they are purposely placing you into a no win scenario but life isn't always this bleak, so why should this question bother you?

For example, if you can actually do something to save them all, wouldn't that be the choice you would make? If you can't do anything to save them then by all means it is out of your control.

"I'd have to not choose thereby letting 9 people die who didn't have to...."

As someone already mentioned, "not choosing" is actually a choice you are making. The moment you become aware of the fact that you are capable of flipping that switch, your actions become your expression of your ethics.

here's why I find it the whole "not choosing" is a choice as somewhat misleading

doing nothing is not choosing...it's doing nothing.....choosing is choosing, not choosing is not equal to choosing.(Note: I'm stealing a lot of this from Pyrrho's argument, but I found it convincing). Inaction is not action

Say I choose one person or the other. Well, I have willfully murdered that person. If I don't do anything I have not willfully done anything....what will be will be.

This is the line of thinking anyway, but in this thread I was kind of wondering if such an opinion is 'worth' breaking in certain situations.

I mean given the trolley problem we could potentially put the whole world minus one person on the main track and a single person on the other and given this view it would be wrong to flip the switch. <---I see this a potentially worth sacrificing a principle over...of course that just begs the question of why one would hold such a principle in the first place

Perhaps in some situations what you've said is true. In this situation however, if you have the knowledge that without flipping the switch a person will die, and you choose not to flip the switch, you are consciously allowing that person to die.

If for example, a man said "kill either your mother or your father, or I'll do it anyways" and you refused to make a choice, resulting in the man murdering your mother, you would not be responsible.
This is a case where non-action would be permissible.

Can you see why that is different from the trolley case?

can you see where I walk upon a situation where 5 people were going to die by no fault of my own.....and if I switch the track 1 person will die who was not previously going to die all because of my willful choice to kill him??

There is no morally acceptable course of action for me to take if I think every life is infinitely important.

I thought you didn't espouse utilitarianism...

this would be equivalent to me killing a healthy person and harvesting his/her organs to help save 5 unhealthy people who need organs.

I would not advocate flipping the switch either - but don't mistake this for an admission that inaction is not a choice. You are choosing to allow those five deaths instead of one - whether it is your fault is inconsequential.

It's like saying that it's not your fault if you allow a murderer to pull the trigger by simply standing by and watching. Technically, it's not your fault, as you didn't pull the trigger, but at the same time, you had the power to stop the murder from ever happening and chose not to, allowing the death of the victim. I would argue that this is just as bad.
Worse than the actions of a bad man is the inaction of a good one.

I guess that is my delimma in this thread. I don't think I ought to flip the switch either, but I wonder if such a view is worth holding? Especially for such isolated events like the trolley problem. I obviously understand the importance of this point of view when applied to the whole but such an event would seem 'different' to me

The reason I would not pull the switch is because I refuse to make a value judgment on the lives of sentient creatures. In my mind, the quantification is not 5 vs. 1, it is infinity vs. infinity. Therefore, if the situation is truly out of my hands, except for my ability to flip the switch, then I will do nothing, because there is nothing to be done of moral consequence.
It appears to me that you arrived at your conclusion however by a different means of thought.
Your philosophical reasoning is focused on responsibility - keeping your hands clean of the death of another. In my opinion, your hands are already bloodied by the five deaths you've allowed.

To answer your question, "is such a view worth holding?", I say NO!

If we attempt to place value on human life by judgment of those persons' utility (a doctor is more important than a plumber), we use those people as means to an end, and therefore disrespect them.

infinity vs infinity is exactly what I said(Post #14) but such a view would mean potentially allowing the entire world to die. Realistically that seems like a problem. I just can't help but wonder if it's a bit of a cop out is all.

This viewpoint would not restrict us from taking action against individuals though. If a terrorist threatened the world with nuclear weapons, I could shoot him right in the face and feel great about it, despite my belief that his life is as valuable as all others, because I would be taking action against his action.
It wouldn't be his life that I was valuing as less than the rest of the worlds', but it would be his actions that I was condemning as inappropriate.
I reserve the right to act ethically by any means necessary. (lol)