The Trolley Problem - Philosophical Insights

For those of you who don't know the trolley problem, it is the classic philosophical scenario linked with utilitarianism;

"You are in a moving trolley along a rail track (moving at 100+mph). The trolley is hurtling towards a group of five workers, who are all both deaf and blind, and therefore will not see or hear you coming. However, on the other track there is only one worker, who is also both deaf and blind. In your trolley you have a lever, if you pull this lever it will allow you to change tracks, thus killing the one person and saving the five people. You are left with the choice of killing one person (by pulling the lever and saving the other five people) or letting five people die (and thus not killing the one person). All six people are exactly the same age, weight, height, ect. Which do you choose?"

To tackle this, I feel we must first differentiate between killing people and letting people die. Is there a difference? A consequentialist would argue that there is no difference, that the end result is the same, that you'd have to pull the lever because the end would justify the means.

However, I don't agree with this. I think there is a huge difference between killing people and letting people die. Take another example, using the same philosophical principle:

"A doctor has 5 patients missing limbs, who will all die unless they are replaced. A normal, healthy patient walks in and asks for a checkup. The doctor faces the problem; if he killed and chopped up this healthy patient, then he would be able to save the other five from certain death, and there was no other way of him doing it. What should he do, should he kill the one person to save the five?"

Whilst the principle is the same, the example becomes considerably more grotesque. However, a consequentialist would still argue that the doctor has to kill the one to save the five. In this case, I don't believe that the end would justify the means, and by changing the example, you add the humane factor of true responsibility and change the initial perception of the dilemma. For those of you that are still hardcore consequentialists, consider this example:

"People are dying in poverty across the world all the time. By not giving up all our money and possessions in order to save them, we are all terrible human beings as we're letting thousands.millions.die for the sake of ourselves."

Whilst I don't think it's right that such vast wealth is spread amongst so few, I'm hardly the noble, self sacrificing saint that everybody should be. I'm what everyone else is; a product of the world around me, ignorant of the power I have to truly change lives.

There is a remarkable difference between killing people and letting people die, the guilt is secondary to the principle and this can be shown through the examples. If we're going to follow a truly consequentialist utilitarian viewpoint, we may as well become nazi's (arguably the most utilitarian European political party to date). As much as I hate to bring Godwin's law in, I believe it is relevant to highlight the complexity of this issue.