Well let's assume that you're a crack shot and well read in physics, so not only do you have a 99.9% chance of hitting them so they fall as you'd calculated, but you also understand the concept of thought experiments and didn't get bogged down at school with questions like How big is this chicken, that it's the same size as a bag of grain?

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Hey, I did give two answers.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

1. Permissible, though I have no idea about what I'd actually do. I lean most towards not switching, it's their choice to be there.

2. Obligatory

3. Forbidden, first rule of medicine is "Do no harm".
Since noone has four of the same organs, it should be possible to take the one who dies first of the four and use his organs for the last three.

__________________
And the "driving on the freeway on a scooter" analogy still holds true because the pilots are sitting in 7 to 30 ton aircraft o' doom and you are running around them in your very own Meatbody, Mark I. Beep, beep.
Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Interesting discussion so far, though I think the original scenarios could have been written a little better...

In scenario 1, I'd have it so that all the individuals have been tied to the tracks against their will. So for anyone that was concerned about whether the individuals have some responsiblity for their own impending deaths, what would the answer be in this case?

Also, I'd rewrite scenario 2 to be similar to scenario 1: Five people are tied to a track and about the be run over by the train, but the other track is empty. Do nothing and they all die. Flip the switch and they all live. Now if it's not murder to do nothing in scenario 1, is it still not murder to do nothing in this scenario?

#1. Derail the train.

#2. Call someone who knows how to swim.

#3. Invent artificial organs.

Try to find an alternative. I don't like one on one choices.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

This is very odd reasoning and I think it's because you have added a considerable amount of your values into the questions that isn't really in the questions.

You could say the drowning victim might be the antichrist or something and change your answer accordingly. All this business about who deserves what. How do you know the organ donor in the hospital took care of himself for instance? And you have the whole story behind the track people that is totally made up and not in the question.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

What planet do you live on?

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

Permissible and maybe even recommended.
Obligatory.
Prohibited.

And the difference between 1 and 3 is through genetics and socialization #1 is acceptable and #3 isn't.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

I said that I don't know why those 5 people are on the tracks. All I know is that they're at risk while the lone person is not. Whatever their reason for being there, they obviously haven't done as well at keeping themselves safe as the lone person. It's unfair to murder someone because of someone else's failure.

Sounds like eugenics in sheep-clothes to me.
Sometimes there is a thing called bad luck, it happens to people.
You don't know why anybody is where they are.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

I'm not saying your version is good or bad or that it is right or wrong. I was just commenting that you added an awful lot of stuff to the scenario and that some things could be added arbitrarily which really change the question. And you weren't the only one adding things either.

Let me guess, you have a hard time with multiple choice and true false questions on tests.

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

And I suppose you expect a simple yes/no answer to that one?

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

A little getting to this one but here goes:

For #1, and assuming nothing about the people, I would say permissable. By doing nothing, 5 will die, by flipping the switch, 1 will die. It is more likely that the one will see or hear the train in time to get clear, whereas the 5 may get in each others' way while trying to get off of the tracks. Legally, I think that flipping the switch is more likely to get you prison time than not flipping it, and that is a big factor for a lot of people. Look at the number of idiots that lead the police on high speed pursuits because they had expired licence plates, or forgot their driver's licence. When they get caught, they almost always say, "I didn't want to get in trouble".

#2 Obligatory to save the kid. (see bottom)

#3 Forbidden. Do no harm applies. I see this as slightly different than situation 1, because generally speaking, a hospital waiting room should carry a higher degree of safety than being on a railroad track. Any of the 6 on the rail track should realize on some level that there is a risk in what they do. The guy in the waiting room would have no reason to feel he was in any more danger than bing at home, or a library.

True story: While working at a grocery store a few years back I became involved in a few fights between customers and helped to catch (sometimes by tackling) a number of shoplifters. I mention this because I KNOW there are some situations I will involve myself in despite the risk. I also know that not everyone will do that. When we got a new guy on the stocking crew I would ask them if they were comfortable in getting involved with a fight, should one happen. If they said no, then I told them it would be their job to call the police.

One day (about 2 PM) we got word that there was a fight in the parking lot. When I got out there it was over, but I got the story from the victim. It was a woman who had pulled into the lot and was then attacked by a man. While she was being beaten, another shopper walked by and did nothing to help her. He did not want to be involved, and I can understand a person not wanting to step into a fight in progress. What was inexcusable to me, was that once safely inside the store, he did not tell anyone what was happening. He was so 'not involved' that she could have been killed while he was shopping. I don't understand how a person can be so selfish as to see someone being beaten, and NOT report it to at least SOMEONE, if doing so will not place them in any harm whatsoever.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

You don't need to know it. In the long run, so long as everyone sticks with the consistent strategy that unhealthy people end up dying naturally more often than healthy people, it all averages out for the best. That's how evolution works, no?

Of course, if we're sending our strongest and smartest off to a prolonged war, and they're the ones getting hurt while the weak and stupid stay at home... maybe then we have to rethink the strategy.

I've just thought of a solution to question nr. 2!

Take your pants off, and then jump in the pond to save the little brat.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Read all of my answer to 3, despite how it starts off it was never a choice between obligatory and permissible, but rather between forbidden and permissible, and I concluded that it would only be permissible if the person volunteered their organs under no pressure, they were just informed of the situation.
I agree that taking organs by force is forbidden.

__________________

Then listen to the mother go off about how you're a sex offensive pervert? No thanks.

I was speculating on their purpose for being on the tracks to see if I could justify killing someone to save them. I couldn't come up with any reasonably likely excuse. There was no sign that they were being kept there at gunpoint and it's hard to believe that they didn't realize that the tracks were there. Someone from Mars might not realize that tracks are dangerous but the problem didn't say they had green skin or antennae so I must assume they're members of our society and not ignorant of rail travel.

People are ultimately responsible for seeing to their own safety. I don't owe them any saving. I would do so anyway, maybe even at risk to myself, but I don't have the right to kill someone else to save others who have chosen riskier activities. There's nothing wrong with taking risks if that's what you like to do. There's more to life the pure duration and some might choose to risk making theirs shorter in order to make it more interesting. That's fine with me. If they die early it was by their own choices. Others might choose safer lifestyles in order to live longer. The risk takers should not expect such people to die early along with them or instead of them.

The five people are on dangerous tracks and there's no indication that they're there against their will. That's risky. Maybe they didn't know the specific risks on that particular stretch of track but they should have found out or had an escape plan. I'm not killing someone else to save them.

The point is that there is a lot of stuff left out of the question. All else being equal, I think we all agree that 5 is simply better than 1, but nothing in life is ever so simple. Or so equal.High 700s, low 800s

PS: Keith, where are you? I know you like to post in January...