This seems to be the real question here: Is it better to intervene to cause the death of a few rather than to let events play out that will cause the death of many? The decision is agonizing because it's only human not to want to associate yourself with the death of others. Also, in addition to this, we worry about imperfect information, and wonder if our choice might be made worse after we get more accurate information about the situation. Personally, assuming that the situation is simply 'allow 40 to die' or 'kill 5 instead', the best outcome is to kill the 5. If I were in the group of 5, I would want things to play out in that way. Of course, no one wants such a situation to arise in the first place. However, IMHO not intervening when you can is the same as intervening. Actually, I think there's an argument to be made that it's only because some people have made such difficult choices in the past that we aren't ruled by tyrants. IMHO there's nothing fundamentally wrong with making difficult choices. I think what most important, is that the choices involve scrutiny and consequence commensurate with the impact of those choices. We should identify where in society these choices are made, and scrutinize the hell out of them. Here's a way to make the choice even more agonizing: include your child in the 5. If that's the case, I won't intervene, and will face the consequences.But if Greg pulls the lever, he is deliberately choosing to bring death to this gang of five. If he leaves it alone, it will not be him who causes deaths among the forty.
Okay, instead of a runaway train, let's change the situation to a long-term financial depression. Greg is now the leader of a nation of people who are suffering through a severe financial crisis which is causing widespread poverty and hunger. A small group of people in this nation has a disproportionately high number of financiers and bankers in it. Should Greg sacrifice this much smaller subset of people in order to allow the much larger group of people in his nation to work their way out of the depression without interference from these financiers? Yes, I just pulled a Godwin. The depression is the Great Depression. The nation is Germany. The smaller subset of people who are disproportionately bankers and financiers are Jews, and the sacrifice is concentration camps. The thing is, we can frequently know when we are doing something wrong, but we frequently cannot know what the specific outcomes will be. We just aren't that smart. In fact, we are sometimes so dumb that other people can't believe we really did something so awful just because we didn't know better, and then attribute our actions to malice. Yet, throughout the Nuremberg Trials we were repeatedly told that no one believed themselves to be acting out of malice. Yes, they knew what they were doing was wrong, but they believed the particular outcome they predicted would make it right.Is it better to intervene to cause the death of a few rather than to let events play out that will cause the death of many? ... Personally, assuming that the situation is simply 'allow 40 to die' or 'kill 5 instead', the best outcome is to kill the 5.
I don't think that Germany took an approach that helped the larger population, either. At any rate, this thought-experiment is much more simplistic, and here, I suggest that course only because we have such a degree of certainty about the outcome. And in any case, I think the actors should be held accountable when they are wrong. Here's a flipside: Was it right for the US to join the allies in resistance? That guaranteed the loss of many American lives without a certain outcome. Most every moral situation is the result of someone else's actions. Perhaps the workers should have been in this tunnel, except for poor labor practices. When we stand aside, we choose to stand aside.Yes, I just pulled a Godwin. The depression is the Great Depression. The nation is Germany. The smaller subset of people who are disproportionately bankers and financiers are Jews, and the sacrifice is concentration camps.
Oddly enough, it was the Third Reich who declared war on the U.S. Until then, we had only been suppling Britain and defending the shipping lanes we were using to do so. The U.S. would most likely not have entered the war in Europe if it hadn't been threatened by the declaration. However, Just War Theory concerns itself with when war may be ethically justified. Consequentialists, on the other hand, would have had to predict whether or not American involvement would end in a better result, and between British aerial and naval actions, widespread resistance movements in Europe, and the overwhelming numbers of the Soviet troops, along with the barely-suspected, subsequent Cold War, which began over disputes on how the conquered Axis countries would be managed by the Allies, that would not have been an easy task.Was it right for the US to join the allies in resistance?