The Train Dilemma!!

The train dilemma is a common thought-problem that pops up in most any ethical discussion. Below are my responses. In this question I assume the children are innocent. The old man presents a host of unknowns, some of which I will address.

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

This one is fairly easy for me to answer as it’s just a basic utilitarian response. Of course I’d throw the switch and save five children to save one. Assuming that all the children are equal and with equal potential I’d save the five. However, should the five children be deficient in some manner and the single child be a prodigy I may choose to save the child that can benefit society the greatest. While such a thought is abhorrent and reeks of eugenics the point of this question is to look past the obvious. The utilitarian in me says that I should seek to save that which benefits all of us the most.

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Is the old man a doctor, a surgeon, a great thinker, or a researcher with a cure for disease? If so I would choose to save the old man though he may hate me for it (and I’d probably hate myself.) The children are untested variables and may grow into great thinkers or great criminals. We don’t know what they are going to do and thus their potential cannot be considered if a known variable (provided this variable is a great positive) is available.

Should I know nothing about the old man, I would choose to save the children. The children do possess potential and the old man may be near the end of his. All other things being equal it is better to save future potential than potential that has run its course.

Same scenario except: The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

In some ways this isn’t a fair question as it ignores the biological imperative we have to protect our own children. Of course not everyone has a need to protect their own children and we see them paraded on the news as monsters. This is not a label that I entirely disagree with though I find dehumanizing anyone to be path to moral ruin.  If I apply the same logic as I did in question two and my child is a person of low potential, I should save the old man. However, such an act would be beyond the pale and the idea of being able to sacrifice my child for the greater good is not one that I could accept.  It is an interesting question as it tests one’s resolve to a moral purity but moral purity cannot overcome such a strong biological drive as protecting one’s own child.