So what was the final answer to the train ethics problem?

I’d run away and let fate decide. Or is it already heading a certain way?

For anyone who is curious or would like to do more research before answering, this thought experiment is commonly referred to as the trolley problem.

@RedDeerGuy1 There isn’t really a “final answer” to the problem. Or if there is, we haven’t yet arrived at a place where that answer is both known and uncontroversial. This is partially because the scenario raises several questions beyond the basic one of “what would you do?” The most obvious next question is “why would you make that choice?” But then there’s also the question of “do you think making that particular choice is obligatory?”

The problem also gets complicated by the introduction of small variations (all of which maintain the basic premise of sacrificing one to save five). A lot of people (most people, actually) are willing to pull a lever that sends the trolley down a different track. But if you give them a different way of saving the five—such as pushing a very large man onto the track in front of the trolley—they often give a different answer. And some people will say that the choice they would make is morally obligatory, but they wouldn’t be willing to punish someone who made a different choice.

@anniereborn The trolley is already heading towards the group of five people. If you do not intervene, it will kill them. If you do intervene, the trolley will change course and hit the one person instead.

Alright, I’m doing nothing then. I’d feel more guilty if I chose the outcome, than if “fate” did.
ETA: Wait, who knows I am there?

Not saving anyone when you had a chance of saving them would be more guilty than choosing to save. Doesn’t matter who knows you’re there or not. You know you could have saved atleast 5 not all but you didn’t. That guilt itself is sufficient which you won’t be able to overcome all your life. So yes I’ll choose the option which gives me possibility of saving maximum lives.

@imrainmaker Well, the track that only has one person on it is being saved.

It’s a simple solution for a logical and moral person: you did not create this situation and there is no moral burden for you to “fix” it. You don’t have the full knowledge necessary to make an objective decision, such as who these people are, who tied them there, and what each is likely to accomplish in life should you save them. While there is no moral imperative for you to save anyone, there is a moral burden not to directly cause someone harm. If you switch the trolley, someone dies by your hand, as a result of your conscious act. The moral imperative forbids treating someone as a means to an end, and sacrificing one to save many is treating that person as a means.

Remove your fallacious primate pack instinct for eudaimonia and the solution is both simple and easy.

I assume that these people are strangers to me and that simplifies the problem immensely. In situations like that, I go for the greater good. It’s almost a knee-jerk decision for me. Then I’d go eat a nice meal in a nice restaurant.

The more I think about this, the more I lean toward @SmashTheState‘s answer.

Life isn’t a comic book and I’m not Batman. It’s probably against the law to tamper with trolly switches anyway, and who’s to say a trolly full of Habitat for Humanity volunteers isn’t headed this way on that track, anyway? I don’t know the trolly schedule.

I’m filing this scenario firmly under “not my problem”. I’ll call 911 so first responders can get a jump.

You can either go by Spock’s Rule,
or you can just let the train kill the 5, then go down and kill the other one, as to not leave any witnesses.