The trolley problem. BBC 4

Right & Wrong. The trolley Problem A runaway train is heading towards five workers on a railway line There is no way of warning. But you are standing near lever that operates some points. Switch the points... and the train goes down a spur. Trouble is... there is another worker on that bit of track too. But it is one fatality instead of five. Should you do that? Many people think the right thing to do would be to switch the points. To sacrifice one to save five. Since that produces the best outcome possible. Now imagine the train heading for the workers again, this time it can only be stopped by pushing the very large man of a bridge. Its great bulk will stop the train. But he dies. Should you do that? Most people say "no". But why not? Both thought experiments cases of sacrificing one to save five. Where the trolley problem examined is where the moral decision are simply about outcomes? Or about a manner in which you achieve them? Some utilitarians argued that two cases are not importantly different from each other Both have similar consequences and consequences are all that really matter. In each case one person dies and five are saved. The best option in each harrowing situation. But lots of people said they would switch the points, but they wouldn't push the man of the bridge. Are they simply inconsistent or are they onto something?