Most people answer these wrong.
How so? Because they are all different versions of lifeboat ethics. Essentially, the scenarios present situations where the few or one must die in order to save the many. Many people choose the lesser evil — kill the few.
This having been said, there’s a moral problem to choosing one or the other, if you believe individuals are to be respected as such. Most respondents will (rightly) agonize over the choice in a classroom setting… a good sign. Still, many will answer one way or another.
Tricky utilitarianists will make the argument that because one has chosen to throw one life overboard for the betterment of the majority, this argues for a whole host of concepts (abortion, slavery, necessity of the Third World) that we may find morally distasteful, but nonetheless are chosen — and at times tolerated by — societies and governments.
Of course, what is being argued isn’t a case of utilitarianism in the purest sense, but proportionalism. Proportionalist ethics make the argument that one can do evil and affect good — a contradiction in the highest regard.
Hence where lifeboat ethics ultimately fail. As the captain of the boat, it holds 800 lbs. of weight, and there are 1200 lbs. of person. As the boat rapidly fills with water, you state the situation to the crew and ask for volunteers. None reply. What do you do?
Let’s put it another way, as TIME Magazine offers many alternatives:
An out of control trolley is heading down a track toward five unsuspecting people and will surely kill them all. You could throw a switch diverting it to a siding, but an equally unsuspecting man is standing there and the train will kill him instead. Could you throw the switch, killing one to save five?
What if you could take the place of the man. Would you?
Better yet, what if you knew the boat could only hold 800 lbs. and there were 1000 lbs. of crew on the boat. Would you throw your 200 lbs. body overboard to save the rest?
That is the real answer to these questions. Given rational actors, what would they choose for themselves? Better yet, would you be prepared to make a similar sacrifice?
The endgame becomes a bit more clear at this point. If chosen on your behalf, the act becomes morally questionable. If freely chosen, the act becomes honorable. Free will and voluntary actors are the crux of the argument. It’s too bad the “quiz” never addresses this, and allows for moral ambiguity to muddy an otherwise beneficial thought experiment.