posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 06:44 PM
The train problem, if I recall correctly, became popular as part of a larger set of moral dilemmas that supposedly, when taken as a whole, illustrated
inconsistencies, or at least quizzical features, of human decision making.
So, it wasn't so much that there was a "right answer" to the train problem, but that certain answers in this problem were "incompatible" with
other popular answers in other problems.
I don't think the train problem bears on the existence of absolute morality, but only its completeness. There are problems which moral
considerations, absolute or relative, may not decide. That does not mean that there is or isn't an absolute morality, and surely doesn't mean that
there aren't problems which can be decided on moral grounds.
For the record, as to the train problem itself, I lack the authority to kill even one innocent person. I could conceivably acquire that authority, or
I could have some specific duty to somebody on the train, or the operator of the railroad, or whomever. But here and now, I don't.
Having the power to intervene confers no right to kill anybody, IMO. I make nobody's situation worse than it is if I decline to intervene (that's
called a Pareto solution, if you're keeping score).
So, nature takes its course. Sorry, trainful of people.