---

Kill the five. They know of the danger and are ignoring it. The one person knows of the danger and is not ignoring it. Therefore, I'm going to let the five people take the consequences of ignoring the train.

---

---

Five people are walking on a railroad track. They are aware of the fact that a train could mow them down at any second, and indeed, they are ignoring the one that is coming right now. But in front of the train and behind them, there is a fork in the path, and one solitary person is walking alone on the track they know the train won't go down.

You can pull a lever and kill the single, smart person, or leave it alone and allow the five to die. What do you do?

---

Assuming that the 5 ignorant people are chavs, then of course I would let them die. Only chavs would do something that stupid. The smart person doesnt deserve to die

-------
They say learning to love yourself is the first step,
that you take when you want to be real...
Just Be - Dj Tiesto

Anyway, if you subscribe to the theory that all human life is sacred and is to be protected, then you have to throw the switch to kill the one, in order to save the five.

Social Darwinism is misguided psuedoscience at best, and a very dangerous philosophy to have, at worst.

-------
Vote for REAL change.

---

pull the lever on the smart guy.. If he's smart enough he'll run off the tracks.

---

More likely he ISNT really smart, or he wouldn't be playing on train tracks in the first place. So they're all idiots, and I'd pull the lever.

-------
You only live once...but if you work it right, once is enough.

maybe you could come up with a better question to ask what you really want to ask.

-------
The moon's phase on the day you were
born was waxing crescent.

It is more moral because the five people who are in the way of the train are destined to die UNLESS something interferes - it is not the smart person's destiny to die, unless they are forced to do so.

-------
Si on me presse de dire pourquoi je l'aimais,
je sens que cela ne se peut exprimer qu'en répondant,
"Parce que c'était lui, parce que c'était moi."

If the 'smart' person 'knows' that the train won't come down their track (that is, any given track they are on), you simply pull the lever, and allow the train to go down the track they were on. But since they know there cannot exist a world in which the train comes down their track, they can no longer exist on that track; and therefore must have switched before being run over.

Of course, they then cease to be 'alone'. Though if we take the question as the past tense and the time period after their actions as the present, we no longer run into that restriction.

All six live if we're smart about it, and we know that the 'smart' person is as well.

-------
now lookee baby,
you're just nineteen.