According to utilitarianism, when the moral value of an act is determined solely by its utility. So, it is morally permissible to throw the switch because the death of one person is less of a loss than the death of five. However, from the point of view of accepted morality, it is better not to do anything. If a person throws the switch, they can become a killer of one person. If a person does not change it, they can indirectly become guilty of the death of five people since they theoretically have the opportunity to save them.
It is not morally permissible to push the large man on the rails because it is unethical to save some people, sacrificing the lives of others. In addition, it is impossible to approach the solution of the problem purely quantitatively: the life of one is no less valuable than the life of five. It is not necessary to interfere in the course of events if, perhaps, they are going by the will of fate. A person does not have the right to decide whose life is worth continuing – this large man or those five.
So, we have two moral problems, but if we think about them, it turns out that there are not two tasks, but only one. Removing all the nuances that do not affect the formula, the problem boils down to the following: is it morally permissible to kill one person to save five. In both the first and second examples, the decision-maker murders people by his actions. The problems of “action” and “inaction” are not discussed here because, in both cases, the moral significance is the necessity to act.
It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between deliberately throwing the switch and killing a man with a scalpel. Even though both actions will lead to the death and the rescue of five, the situations are entirely different. The first case of the trolley can be interpreted as salvation through necessary evil. The second case with the donor is an example of an immoral act.
I think Peter Unger and Peter Singer’s thought experiment provide reasonable grounds for their conclusion. We must save the child, despite the loss of the shoes. And since we must save the child, there is no fundamental difference where he is: right in front of us or on the other side of the world. There is no difference between a child who is drowning before our eyes and a child starving to death in Africa. The cost of shoes in the experiment is similar to a donation to charity. If we save a child nearby, we must also save another, unknown one.
I think we should be giving a large amount of our income to feed those less fortunate. For the wealthier people themselves, helping those in need is a kind of insurance against possible loss of wealth and even life itself. Rich people, in theory, should feel responsible for everything that happens in the country. The multiplication of wealth depends not only on the mind, business qualities of a businessman but also on the correct organization of the enterprise and good working conditions for its employees. The ability to create wealth is a unique talent that is not given to everyone. So, people should use this gift not only for personal success but also for the benefit of society. It makes no sense to waste money on material pleasures since they bring only fleeting joy: this results from weakness and lack of self-discipline. And if somebody can help people who can’t afford to buy food or sick children, spending money on frills seems morally wrong.