If you could pull switch and kill a person to save five, people would have no problem with killing that one. But as soon as you get you get your hands dirty, oh no life is precious. Well five people are greater than one. It is rather a stupid ideal.
Logically and statistically, it is the right thing to do. On average, every life is equal to every other, therefore saving 5 at the expense of 1 is basic math. When you bring human emotions into the equation, then the "right" thing to do depends on the pusher's morals and judgement.
If you do not choose to push the "fat man" off of the bridge you are in full acceptance of being indirectly responsible for the death of the five workers. The same way the workers are thought to know the "assumed risk" of being on the track, the fat man should also be aware of the "assumed risk" that standing on the edge of a bridge that moving trains passing under entails. Not pushing the "fat man" would show a callous indifference to the situation while pushing the "fat man" is an altruistic action where one life is sacrificed for the lives of many.
If you push the fat man off the bridge, assuming he stops the train, you would save 5 people at the expense of 1 person. This, while may seem cruel, is actually the right thing to do, because saving 5 people at the expense of 1 person is good idea.
The firefighters give/risk their lives to save people. So does heroes. What i'm trying to say is that the one who gave their life will be remembered. Also, an example: you have a group of dogs you have to feed, or they starve. You have 1 sheep. So, to starve like, 20, will you allow the 1 to live?
When placed in this condition I believe we won't even have a time to ask their consent. Either it may be the obese person or the construction workers we can't ask them right? We can't also ask their background so we don't know if they have a family or not. We also cannot assume what kind of future they have from how they look like because that is the same as discrimination by skin color right? So what factors do we have left? I believe the only factors that we have and can compare are numbers. Whether we will sacrifice one over five is the question in this case right? I believe it is a unique choice because as a government or as a member of one, we have to assure or provide the maximum choice for everyone. In this case, though, we have no other choice but to choose five because we have such responsibilities right? I believe it is the same as sending troops to war. Although, they know that they have a possibility to die, if they were afraid of that they would not join and go to the mission in the first place. They trust the long period of training that they go through and they gain this confidence that if they conduct their missions like they conducted their training, that they won't die, right? So they assume in the first place that they live and everyone else who die they treat as heroes and therefore it is again like lottery because they do not know whether someone will die in a mission or not or if everyone will come back home alive. In this case I believe it is very similar to it because if we apply what I have just written. If we pretend we are the government and the obese man a troop, we are simply sending him to a war zone. The result of that might be his death but our actions are justified because we did that to protect the citizens right? In this case the construction workers. So I believe that proactively pushing the man is justified in this case.
The people in the path of the train will only be killed if:
A) The people in the path of the train do not have the awareness or agility to get out of the train's path,
B) The people in the path of the train are not durable enough to survive whatever injuries they incur.
The idea that these people and the fat man are the primary considerations indicates a lack of perspective. A century after this choice is made, these individuals and those who know them are dead, no matter the outcome of this event. Their descendants are likely not all gone. The real question is whether it is ethical to save genes that are not good enough to keep the individual from being killed by a train. I propose that pushing the fat man off the bridge only has the potential to eliminate one line of inferior (or at least inadequate) genes, whereas letting events unfold without interference has the potential to eliminate multiple lines of inferior genes.
It is better for future beings when inferior genetic specimens are eliminated in order to make room for superior specimens that are able to hear trains and get out of their way. This reduces the aggregate amount of train-related suffering in the perpetual future, thus benefitting a larger number of people.
I would not push the fat man off the bridge. It would not be your fault that those people on the track died, it would be the trains. However, if you push the fat man, his death would be on you. I believe that it is worse to do something wrong than to not do something right.
Der arme dicke Mann hat wahrscheinlich eine Familie der dicke Mann würde nicht nur von seinem Tod leiden aber so wird seine Familie. Es wäre nicht moralisch richtig, wie könnte man mit sich selbst zu leben, nachdem, es immer noch jemanden zu töten Mord wäre. Sicher, dass es aus Gründen der Einsparung die Leute auf der Strecke, aber warum jemanden leiden für andere Menschen Fehler. Nun, das ist meiner Meinung nach Abschied
Instead of stressing over what decision to make, push the fat man or let the people die, I would simply make it somebody else's decision! I would simply tap the fat man on the shoulder and, tell him that if he doesn't jump all of those people will die, and make it HIS decision.
The idea that we somehow have a moral obligation to save more people in a dilemma is one of deonotological 'duty' ethics. First of all, the problem with deonotological thinking is that, somehow, a duty can still be considered to be ethical. It's the equivalent of giving a homeless man an apple while having a gun pointed at your head. You don't act because it's intrinsically ethical or moral, you act because societal pressure and utilitarian thinking have told you that five people are five times as valuable as one. Furthermore, the idea of ethical actions is a flawed one. The definition of what is ethical relies on the agency which has the power to define what is ethical. Ultimately, what matters is personal autonomy. If anything happens to the fat man, it should be the fat man's choice as a conscious agency. On the other hand, one should not be punished for murdering the fat man for the sake of five lives. As it stands, the job of the State is (or should be, in my view) the safety of the public. In the absence of a State authority, one could be acting in its stead but prepared to suffer the consequences no matter how they turn out - if the fat man doesn't stop the train and six people die then tough, you just murdered the fat man. Assuming the fat man does stop the train, then it really is irrelevant. It's intrinsically amoral. Ethical language is an evaluation of a scenario, not a description. It has no inherent value of truth.
I do not believe you should push that man. I don not believe that fat man needs pushed. I do not believe he wants to be pushed, he could not, would not want to be pushed. It not nice to push, especially not a fat man. You should not, would not push a fat man off the bridge.
I won't push off the fat guy and here is why: I am a bystander who happens to walk past. If I push off the fat guy his death will be my fault; I will be a murderer, but if I don't react and just keep on walking, sure the train will take more the one life, but in the end their deaths are not my fault, but theirs because of standing on train tracks.
If you're trying to be a hero why don't you just throw yourself off the bridge in front of the train to stop it, you would probably go to jail anyways for pushing someone in front of a train and killing them, and your death would be honored and commemorated.