Critics argue moral thought experiments are too unrealistic to be useful. However, their artificiality is a deliberate design choice. By stripping away real-world complexities and extraneous factors, philosophers can focus on whether a single, specific variable is the one making a moral difference in our judgment.
The famous Trolley Problem isn't just one scenario. Philosophers create subtle variations, like replacing the act of pushing a person with flipping a switch to drop them through a trapdoor. This isolates variables and reveals that our moral objection isn't just about physical contact, but about intentionally using a person as an instrument to achieve a goal.
Arguments against consequentialism, like the surgeon who kills one healthy patient to save five with his organs, often fail by defining "consequences" too narrowly. A stronger consequentialist view argues such acts are wrong because they consider all ripple effects, including the catastrophic collapse of trust in the medical system, which would cause far more harm.
The core reason we treat the Trolley Problem's two scenarios differently lies in the distinction between intending harm versus merely foreseeing it. Pushing the man means you *intend* for him to block the train (using him as a means). Flipping the switch means you *foresee* a death as a side effect. This principle, known as the doctrine of double effect, is a cornerstone of military and medical ethics.
We accept 40,000 annual US traffic deaths as a cost of convenience, yet a policy change like lowering speed limits could save thousands of lives. This reveals a deep inconsistency in our moral framework: we are apathetic to large-scale, statistical risks but would be horrified by a single, identifiable act causing a fraction of the harm. The lack of an identifiable victim neutralizes our moral intuition.