Editing Trolley problem (section)

== Original dilemma ==
Foot's version of the thought experiment, now known as "Trolley Driver", ran as follows:

{{blockquote|Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible, it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram, which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots, the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples, the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five.<ref name="Philippa Foot 1978" />}}

A [[Utilitarianism|utilitarian]] view asserts that it is obligatory to steer to the track with one man on it. According to classical utilitarianism, such a decision would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (than other option being no action at all).<ref>Barcalow, Emmett, ''Moral Philosophy: Theories and Issues.'' Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2007. Print.</ref> This fact makes diverting the trolley obligatory. An alternative viewpoint is that since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, moving to another track constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise no one would be responsible. An opponent of action may also point to the [[commensurability (ethics)|incommensurability]] of human lives. Under some interpretations of [[duty|moral obligation]], simply being present in this situation and being able to influence its outcome constitutes an obligation to participate. If this is the case, then doing nothing would be considered an immoral act.