Train Scenarios

The first scenario had ourselves driving a train on a track that split too two different tracks. Track one had five workers working on it with protective gear on. The second track had one worker who also had protective gear on. Track one was the one we were currently on and to be on track two we had to change tracks. When asked who we would hit (because we had to hit someone) most of the class choose track two. I was included in this group. Our reasoning was that it was better for just one life to be lost than five. Some of the class however, said they would have stayed on track one because it was more likely for someone to look up and notice (which we were told was not possible) or that by changing tracks you were automatically choosing to end a life.

Then scenario two was introduced. This scenario was about someone else driving a train whose breaks also went out and was headed to hit five workers. You were standing on a bridge looking at the scene and a "fat" guy was standing next to you. Our choices were let the train hit the five workers or push the "fat" guy onto the track to stop the train. Most of the class choose to just leave the train be. Although many students were suggesting to throw shoes or jump down on the workers as a warning instead, but once again we were told this would not work. Many students said leave the train because the workers know it is a possibility and the “fat” guy is an innocent bystander. Also mentioned was that pushing the “fat” guy would be murder because you had a choice.

So why did we argue that less people dead was the best choice in scenario one , but in scenario two most chose to have the five workers die. The reason, in my opinion, is that in scenario one you have no choice but to kill someone, but because it cannot be stopped it is not murder. While in the second scenario pushing someone is murder because you are forcing them to die. Most people find this ethically and morally wrong. Losing any lives is a shame and should be prevented if possible.