With this, the classic trolley problem is solved.

1. A train is on a track to kill five people. You have the option to switch the track, but there is one person on the other track who will die instead. The capabilities or moral impetus of each individual is unkown.
There are no social ramifications or consequences for your actions. What do you do?

Answer: You throw the switch every time. If the existential value of each individual is unknown, the only reasonable conclusion is to assume all are equivalent. Thus saving five people vs one person is the objectively correct choice each time. — Philosophim

I missed the previous discussion, so apologies if I'm saying something out of context. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

For me it is solved, but more complicated. What is my intention in throwing the switch? It must be to save the five, not to kill the one. Killing the one must be a foreseen, but not intended, consequence. If I'm intending to kill the one, then it is murder. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

↪Philosophim Sure, acts with bad intentions can accidentally have good outcomes. I guess we agree that they are still bad? Likewise, acts with good intentions can accidentally have bad outcomes. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

A person attempts to rob a bank for money. While holding up the teller, they don't realize that there was a bomb about to go off outside that would have killed lots of people leaving the bank. Ultimately, the outcome of their stopped robbery was that they saved lives, but their intention was still a harm.

Intention is more about consistency under the law. While a bad intention can sometimes result in a good outcome, that is mostly accidental. — Philosophim

I disagree that the lives saved by the robbers don't count in evaluating morality. — L'éléphant

But we will not encourage the same intent again and warn them if they act in such a manner again, they will be dealt with next time. — Philosophim

1. A train is on a track to kill five people. You have the option to switch the track, but there is one person on the other track who will die instead. The capabilities or moral impetus of each individual is unknkown.
There are no social ramifications or consequences for your actions. What do you do?

Answer: You throw the switch every time. If the existential value of each individual is unknown, the only reasonable conclusion is to assume all are equivalent. Thus saving five people vs one person is the objectively correct choice each time. — Philosophim

I have answered this dilemma before. So, another look at it is good. I still answer, not to switch the track even if it means saving five people. Sacrifice of one life in order to save other lives is never, to me, a sound moral choice. The reason being that I would intentionally kill one person. So I am agreeing with — L'éléphant

Killing some individuals in order to save a number of people is never a good moral foundation. — L'éléphant

Then what you are saying is having five people die and you feel better about is better than reducing the deaths to one person but you feel about about it? I see this as more of a feelings argument than moral calculation. — Philosophim

Not a feeling argument.
But there is a moral actor -- me. I am part of the scenario. Why can't I decide? — L'éléphant

The corollary to it is, what if it was my child that I had to kill?
What if my child was one of the five? — L'éléphant

Because intelligent arguments can be made for either choice, that is it doesn't matter much, morally. — LuckyR

The correct choice is saving the five if existence is good. — Philosophim

1. If there is an objective morality, a foundation is "Existence must be good." — Philosophim

The correct choice is saving the five if existence is good

This needs further discussion. I don't think the existence of objective morality, warrants the conclusion that existence itself is good — L'éléphant

Is that so? — LuckyR

I still answer, not to switch the track even if it means saving five people. Sacrifice of one life in order to save other lives is never, to me, a sound moral choice. The reason being that I would intentionally kill one person. So I am agreeing with ↪Gregory of the Beard of Ockham. — L'éléphant

1. The act itself is morally good or indifferent: it is not an evil kind of act.
2. The bad effect is merely foreseen, not intended; it is permitted, not willed.
3. The bad effect is not a means to achieve the good effect.
4. The good effect must be a proportionally grave reason for permitting the bad effect.

1. The action of throwing a railroad switch is morally indifferent (unlike, say, committing adultery or bearing false witness).
2. I do not intend the death of F. If it were possible to save F as well as A-E I would certainly want to do so.
3. The death of F is not the means of saving A-E. If the switch were thrown to track 2 and F somehow removed from danger, A-E would still be saved.
4. The saving of five lives is a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the loss of one life. We have a net "save" of four lives.

According to PDE, an act which has both good and bad effects is permissible provided that:

The act itself is morally good or indifferent: it is not an evil kind of act.
The bad effect is merely foreseen, not intended; it is permitted, not willed.
The bad effect is not a means to achieve the good effect.
The good effect must be a proportionally grave reason for permitting the bad effect. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Now, I would throw the switch from track 1 to track 2. This satisfies the four conditions because:

The action of throwing a railroad switch is morally indifferent (unlike, say, committing adultery or bearing false witness).
I do not intend the death of F. If it were possible to save F as well as A-E I would certainly want to do so.
The death of F is not the means of saving A-E. If the switch were thrown to track 2 and F somehow removed from danger, A-E would still be saved.
The saving of five lives is a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the loss of one life. We have a net "save" of four lives. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham