M1 Disc. Kill one or five

Since the scenario presented gives the options of 1 vs 5, I felt that choosing the one is the minimal amount of damage to be done. Anything else, beyond the quantity of lives, are stories we're writing to fill in the blanks to make ourselves feel better about our decision, because either way, taking a life is horrific. With the information provided, those stories are nothing more than fictions.

In regards to organ donation.
It's an entirely different situation with far more variables. Organ donation makes a science of analyzing the quality of the life to be saved, and it's right to do so. When the supply and demand are considered, it's better to stretch the supply to the highest science-based benefit. A lung should certainly go to a nonsmoker above a heavy smoker, since the benefits will(likely) be greater for longer. Did we then "kill" the smoker through inaction, through not choosing them? Possibly.

Basically the dude had an accident and got hit by traffic. By hitting the bus, your creating an accident by trying to avoid a dude having an accident - and only then do you become responsible IMO.

Failure to read the road ahead, assess possible dangers, and preparing to take the necessary evasive action.

Anyway, since roadworks are generally about 25km/h these days, it was a probably a survivable collision.

(All well outside the scope and intent of the question, which has nothing to do with roads, vehicles, or local laws)

A lung should certainly go to a nonsmoker above a heavy smoker, since the benefits will(likely) be greater for longer. Did we then "kill" the smoker through inaction, through not choosing them? Possibly.

Should it? If the smoker needed a lung because his old ones failed due to smoking, maybe there is an argument for that - if the smoker needs a lung because they were speared through the chest by debris when conducting their duties as an emergency responder, do you still feel the same way?

JamesSand wrote:

Basically the dude had an accident and got hit by traffic. By hitting the bus, your creating an accident by trying to avoid a dude having an accident - and only then do you become responsible IMO.

Failure to read the road ahead, assess possible dangers, and preparing to take the necessary evasive action.

Anyway, since roadworks are generally about 25km/h these days, it was a probably a survivable collision.

(All well outside the scope and intent of the question, which has nothing to do with roads, vehicles, or local laws)

Of course, that is why it was a summation of two paragraphs addressing both the details you raise and the relationship to the scope and intent of the question in more detail because the proposal cannot 'exist' as hypothesis, it must manifest in some way and the example in the question is a real world example to boot. Otherwise the details of the manifestation must change to create some nature of comparison, such as if giving the accident as a fait accompli what about older people in the bus etc -- for if not its just 1 v 5, which is no real question at all. Anyhow, that is how I view these sorts of questions, and it is not necessary limited to the particular example either - its about being present and aware of ones relationship and responsibilities to the field of causality in all things.

Speaking of which, I'd not enjoy being one of those midnight freeway road workers, where the limit is dropped from 110 to 40 and back to 110 over about 400-600m :S