Test your moral intuitions!

Answer these questions for yourself truthfully. Just take the facts as they are and assume that no other factors come into play.

If you are a doctor and 5 of your patients are going to die tomorrow. 1 needs a heart, 1 needs a lung, 1 needs a liver and 2 need kidneys. You have a healthy patient in 306 that can provide all these and save the other 5. Would you operate to save the 5?

[yes/no]

You are on board a train. The brakes have failed and the driver has fainted from the shock. You are unable to stop the train and there are 5 workers down the track who oblivious and will not have time to escape. Fortunately, there is a side track that you switch the train to, but one worker is on the side track and will be killed if you do. Will you switch the tracks?

[yes/no]

Answered already? Answer first. What are your answers? I assume that most of you would answer no to operating, but yes to switching tracks. But why? What is the significant differences between the two examples? (please answer before reading on)

I hope you answer for yourself before reading on, but my personal answer is this: Firstly, it is to me almost always wrong to take an innocent human life (murder), which is what you would be doing in the first example, but doesn't seem so in the second. There is also a sense in which disease is natural and brake failure is not. So, it is more justifiable to take action in the second example. But I don't think that it is wrong to let the train continue and kill the 5. I just think its better to switch because someone will die anyway and it is better to save more lives if you have the option.

Is my answer different from yours? Please click on the comment button and share your thoughts!