Though experiments are important.

i wrote my response in microsoft word and was over the character count when I copy/pasted. I will put the tree in two comments if you want to read it. It my best arguement for the tree & Kant.It would be morally right to leave train switch. Logically speaking, there is no difference between flipping the switch, and personally putting the person in front of the train. If it is morally right to flip the switch, then it is morally right to put someone in front of the train. If it is not morally right to put someone in front of the train, then it is not morally right to flip the switch. They are one in the same when emotions are not factored in, and it is these scenarios that illustrate immorality of consequentialist thinking.Scenarios: Now, imagine the train is hurdling toward one child, but you can flip the switch to direct it towards five. I can’t think of any moral theory that justifies flipping the switch unless the five children are terminally ill. Utilitarianism says to flip the switch because flipping the switch is objectively calculated to promote the greater good using the hedonistic calculus [1]. If it is morally right to flip the switch, then it is morally right to push the five terminally ill children in front of the train. If it is not morally right to push the five terminally ill children in front of the train, then it is not morally right to flip the switch. Regardless of how outlandish the scenario, they options are logically consistent. This last scenario is a bit graphic. Imagine the train is hurdling toward one child, but you can flip the switch to direct it towards five infants. I can’t think of any moral theory that justifies flipping the switch unless the five infants have no family and nobody (including the outraged general public) that cares about them and the one child is a famous performer (such as Mary-Kate or Ashley back in the day of Full House). Utilitarianism says to flip the switch because flipping the switch is objectively calculated to promote the greater good using the hedonistic calculus [1]. If it is morally right to flip the switch, then it is morally right to put the five infants in front of the train (assuming they would stop the train). If it is not morally right to put the five infants in front of the train, then it is not morally right to flip the switch. Again, they are logically consistent. As you can see, these scenarios can continue to get more and more gruesome with imagination, and with good imagination, you can find a circumstance in which utilitarianism can justify either option (to flip or not to flip). Problems with utilitarianism: One problem with consequentialist thinking is that consequences are almost always out of our control, and we can’t be held responsible for what is not in our control. Another problem with Utilitarianism (or any form of consequentialism) is that it is almost always in a morally grey area, therefor contradicting to the concept of right or wrong. It is important to see morality in black and white because if right and wrong are subjective to circumstance, culture, belief, or personal opinion, then there is no right and wrong and there is no morality. Keep this concept in mind: A square has four sides. It cannot ever be logically argued that, “a square should have three sides” because it is contradictory. Either there is no square or the square should not have three sides.It cannot ever be logically argued that “property should be stolen” because it is contradictory. Either there is no property or property should not be stolen.It cannot ever be logically argued that “truth should be lies” because it is contradictory. Either there is no truth or truth should not be lies.It cannot ever be logically argued that “life should be dead” because it is contradictory. Either there is no life or life should not be dead. Conclusion:There is no circumstance whatsoever in which it can be said that killing is morally right. Regardless of how many are being saved, killing is still morally wrong. Therefor, It would be morally right to leave train switch. The chicken may not have come first… I’m glad con caught the pun; I hope it cracked everyone up. Cons argument is eggceptional to the point where I cannot shell out a rebuttal because it would just be speggulation. However, it is an argument that can only be applied with evolutionist theories. When debating with presumption of creationism, evolution is irrelevant and invalidates his argument. Since it was not defined (as I don’t support creationism or evolution) it is a very valid argument that I cannot disagree with. That’s all, yolks! [1] http://philosophy.lander.edu... Thank you to Samreay for some great critical thought. Also for teaching me to predefine important terms in my arguments, to construct more consistent and tangible arguments, and teaching me a good argument for the chicken or the egg problem. Thank you to the voters for reading. I hope you enjoyed our discussion! -Aly