Shove the Fatman, or, Huzzah for Sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism!

Shove the Fatman I am asserting that in the Train Problem (as described below), pushing the Fatman based on a Sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism (SERC) ethic is more justifiable than any other combination of action and justification the negative will propose. Please read the resolution carefully, because this specifies a debate of comparative advantages, not merely assertion and negation. In the Train Problem one of two equivalent scenarios are given. In the first case, you are standing at a railroad switch. To one side is a single person tied to the tracks. To the other side are five people tied to the tracks. The train is currently traveling towards the side with five people and will kill them. Is it morally justified to throw the switch and divert the train towards the single person, killing him/her and saving the others? In the second case, you are standing at a train station with a train slowing down to arrive. All of a sudden, five people fall onto the tracks, immobilizing themselves. The train will kill them when it arrives. A Fatman stands at the edge of the platform. You know that if you push the Fatman, his body will stop the train, killing him, but saving the five others. Should you shove the Fatman? My answer is yes. I first contend that following an ethic of sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism (SERC), a variation on standard rule-consequentialism, would result in choosing to doom the single person to save the other five. Sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism (SERC) can be summed up as:"An act is morally wrong if and only if it is forbidden either by the rules the acceptance of which would result in the greatest expected good, or, if two or more alternative codes of rules are equally best in terms of expected good, by the one of these codes closest to conventional morality. [1]" I support this contention by assuming a rule that preserving life is desirable. Within the constraints of the Train Problem, I am given the choice of preserving one life or five lives. As saving five lives preserves more lives than preserving one life, it is more desirable. Thus I should act to preserve more lives. Thus I should shove the Fatman. My second contention is that this is more justifiable as opposed to any other set of act and rationale that Con may present. While my method of support for this contention will obviously vary based on the tack Con chooses, I can argue a few merits of this proposal regardless: 1. It has a grounding in empiricism. SERC allows us to evaluate morality based on observable phenomena. Based on the circumstances, what information was available to the moral actor? What possible rules could be constructed or accessed from that information? Which of those rules could we expect, given our knowledge and logic, to have the most positive result? This is a benefit over other forms of ethics in which actions are good in and of themselves and must be accepted on faith with no justification being possible. 2. It possesses intuitive appeal and a resistance to dilemmas. I'd be happy to discuss the "Jews in the Attic" scenario if Con wishes. 3. SERC is demonstrably a positive element of our societal norms. This is why we have established a Mens Rea component of our justice system. We recognize that in order to be blameworthy, the accused must have acted according to a rule by which her/she could have expected a negative outcome. If a person gives to a charity, according to the rule that excess resources should be shared with the needy, it is not in society's interest to punish the person if the charity turns out to be fraudulent. Conversely, if it could reasonably be expected that the charity was fraudulent, society is not served by lauding the people who choose to place their charity there anyway. Feel free to ask any questions in comments before accepting. Thank you. [1]http://plato.stanford.edu...