All these different, more extreme variations of the trolly problem seem to be missing the point of it. It’s not about the deaths, it’s about making the decision to be responsible for those deaths.
To rearrange the premise. If the person was a doctor, and three patients (tied to track A, current path) needed organs to live, and only one person, (Track B) had those organs, should the doctor make the conscious decision to sacrifice the person on track B to save the others?
The people on track A will die without the organs, that is already happening, and the doctor has no involvement in those deaths. However, by getting involved and consciously sacrificing the person on track B, the doctor has now committed murder and taken responsibility for the situation.
All these different, more extreme variations of the trolly problem seem to be missing the point of it. It’s not about the deaths, it’s about making the decision to be responsible for those deaths.
To rearrange the premise. If the person was a doctor, and three patients (tied to track A, current path) needed organs to live, and only one person, (Track B) had those organs, should the doctor make the conscious decision to sacrifice the person on track B to save the others?
The people on track A will die without the organs, that is already happening, and the doctor has no involvement in those deaths. However, by getting involved and consciously sacrificing the person on track B, the doctor has now committed murder and taken responsibility for the situation.