Though experiments are important.

B-e-a-utiful. Logical, objective and well constructed arguement. As they are purely thought experiment's, I was planning on a semantic discussion free of influencing souces, but this direction is a pleasant suprise. Con: "A falling tree can make noise." It is agreeable that "a falling tree can make noise." However, the term 'can' in the statement does not suggest the falling tree will make a noise. For example, if a stranger asks a philosopher, 'can you give me money?' the philosopher, as an able bodied individual would reply 'I can.' And with that reply, he gives no reason to suggest he will give the stranger money. Often times, the transition from 'can' to 'will' is based on a set of conditions. ie. i can give him money as long for as I'm able bodied. I will give him money when I have the money to give. Now to relate this back to the tree: The falling tree can make noise at any time as long as it is falling. The falling tree will make noise if and only if there is someone to percieve it. Rationale: Sound is simply a disturbance in air patterns. A form of energy that sets air particles into vibration and generate pressure waves in the air [1]. These vibrations are just that. Ripples of energy. Until the sound energy finds an ear canal, and vibrates the hair cells in our ear drums, sending messages to the brain that 'hey, a tree fell.' Without the ear, the energy of sound is not a sound at all.Conclusion: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it does not make a sound. That which exists is not the sense of sound itself, but the energy it comes from. It would be morally right to leave train switch.There are in fact two popular moral frameworks at work here, however, since utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, the two being observed are: Consequentialist - building moral arguements based on objectively predicted outcomes (Bentham and the principle of Utility)And non-consequentialist - building moral arguements based on motives (Aristotle and Virtue Ethics), actions (Divine Law, Cultural Relativism) and on a combination of motive and action (Kant and his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Knowledge).Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are mutually exclusive concepts and cannot both be supported without logical inconsistency.Because Kant is an extreemist on the non-consequential side of every arguement as he claims we are not morally responsible for that which we cannot control. in the trolley problem, Kant would not change the path of the train since it is violating a universal principle to not kill of the first categorical imperitive and violates the second categorical imperative in the sense that the lone train track inhabitant is being used as a means to an end [2]. Now, commit to utilitarian, consequentialist type thinking as ask: If you were in the train scenario, but the switch was replaced by a child that you had to physically place on the track to stop the train from killing the five, is it still morally right? Similarly with cons example. Would anyone not hesitate to personally travel to Antartica and strap bombs onto every member of the communities chest? With consequentialism, anything at all can be justified. Imagine the very worst possible action, and consequentialism can find a way to justify it. If there is any action claimed as never okay, the claim is not consequentialist. A very fundamental right we are all very familiar with: the right to life. It is never morally permissable to be responsibe for knowingly taking a life which is why It would be morally right to leave train switch.The chicken comes before the eggThat really is an eggcellent arguement, but Aristotle struggled with the very question of which came first in 384 BC. . And when the line of speciation was drawn, were there not full grown birds that became they fisrt chickens?http://www.epd.gov.hk...;http://ethics.catherinehoman.com...;