Then nature of the thought experiment is that the variables are set in place. There is no chance that either group would notice the train, the specific group will die in its entirety if the train is headed towards them. Similarly, the train will not derail if he chooses to switch the track, it will head towards the group of 5 and kill them. The point is to get rid of those contingent, context-specific factor and really hone in on the matter at hand, does he kill the group of 5 or let the 40 die? You say this, and it's a perfectly agreeable statement. But is it not also true that by being there, knowing the consequences and having the capability to make a decision, that he is responsible either way? He is choosing who will die whether he pulls the lever or not. A person is responsible for what they choose not to do as much as what they choose to do.Greg should not direct the train towards the five people the train is not already heading for. This would be Greg causing harm.
That may be, but one of the flaws of this thought experiment, as I see it, is that we are supposed to decide what Greg should do. To me, that doesn't matter. What matters to me, is what Greg would do and no one can answer that but Greg. If it were me, well, I'd have one hand on that lever, desperately trying to get someone on the phone, hoping that I could reach someone before the critical moment. If I couldn't get anyone on the phone in time, at least I'd be able to report what happened while it was fresh and hopefully get some help a little more quickly.
True, having the outcome be A or B rather than open ended makes certain aspects iffy, but I believe we supposed to be debating on what Greg should do. Greg is merely a medium for the problem to be presented by, if we try and add character traits and flaws to him we are merely clouding the problem.
The nature of a good thought experiment is that it not abstract away relevant realities. Our inability to predict specific outcomes cannot be ignored. If it is, the thought experiment becomes irrelevant to any context where it could possibly matter. Yes, and Greg should choose not to direct the train towards those it was not heading for.Then nature of the thought experiment is that the variables are set in place.
A person is responsible for what they choose not to do as much as what they choose to do.
No it doesn't, by adhering to the rules of the thought experiment you can then use your analysis and conclusions and apply them to other situations in the world. For example, you agree with me that a person is as responsible for their choice to do as their choice to not do. So would it be fair to claim that we are responsible for the deaths of people starving in the developing world whom we could quite easily provide food and water for with no great cost to ourselves? We are letting them die.Our inability to predict specific outcomes cannot be ignored. If it is, the thought experiment becomes irrelevant to any context where it could possibly matter.
If you know of a way for me to do that, I'd like to hear it. I think everyone would. We can, and I have, contributed to charities, which unfortunately do not solve the problem, but we have little influence over the system that creates malnutrition. If you really insist that Greg possesses the supernatural ability to predict specific outcomes, then the question becomes one not of Greg's choice, but of Greg's belief that he possesses divine powers. That's fine, we can look at it that way too. If Greg believes that he knows the exact outcome of either choice, does he also believe that he can assess the value of all the lives in the situation? Does he believe he knows that there is no Jonas Salk or Mahatma Gandhi among the five he believes he will kill in exchange for the 40 who he believes he knows contains no Caligulas or Hitlers? Does he believe he can value human life by counting? I don't think he can know those things any more that he can know specific outcomes, but if he believes he can, he's doing what most of Greek tragedy concerns itself with: having hubris. His belief in his omniscience will cause tragedy.So would it be fair to claim that we are responsible for the deaths of people starving in the developing world whom we could quite easily provide food and water for with no great cost to ourselves?
Maybe we couldn't solve it as individuals but as a society it's possible. We could demand our governments to spend more to help. It's estimated that it would take $30 billion a year, the US Government last year spent 3.3 trillion. It's a relatively small amount in comparison and it I'm sure over countries could contribute. "It's less than half of 1% of the world's combined gross domestic products, not an unreasonable sum to invest in ending the misery and degradation of hunger." Is the fact that we done insist this be done as a society making us responsible for their deaths? I think you're looking too much at the situation and not at the problem. I'll be presenting experiments with far less believable premises than this one, but that's not the point. It's merely a medium for one to analyse the essence of a problem and it doesn't matter if it's not technically possible, it's a hypothetical situation. He knows the results of his choices either way and that's just how it is. Greg has no personal affiliation to either group or individual within and knows nothing about them that may make them a positive or negative influence to the world in the past, present or future. I think that the point of number weighting is that it presents a possible motive for Greg to pull the lever and kill the lesser amount right from the get go, without much forethought. There's definitely no right or wrong answer, i'm just presenting these points to challenge your thinking.If you know of a way for me to do that, I'd like to hear it. I think everyone would. We can, and I have, contributed to charities, which unfortunately do not solve the problem, but we have no influence over the system that creates malnutrition.
If you really insist that Greg possesses the supernatural ability to predict specific outcomes, then the question becomes one not of Greg's choice, but of Greg's belief that he possesses divine powers.
That's fine, we can look at it that way too. If Greg believes that he knows the exact outcome of either choice, does he also believe that he can assess the value of all the lives in the situation? Does he believe he knows that there is no Jonas Salk or Mahatma Gandhi among the five he is certain he will kill in exchange for the 40 who he believes he knows contains no Caligulas or Hitlers? Does he believe he can value human life by counting?