Let’s assume that the train will arrive at the intersection in five minutes. If you pull the lever one way, then pull it back the other, you’ll save someone from losing their job. There is no chance that the lever will get stuck out that you won’t be able to complete the operation on trying. Clearly pulling the lever, then pulling it back is superior to not touching it. This seems to indicate that the sin isn’t pulling the lever, but pulling it without the intent to pull it back. If the sin is pulling it without intent to pull it back, then it would seem very strange that gaining the intent to pull it back, then pulling it back would be a sin.
Instead of thinking about crossing the road, then trying to uncross it, imagine that you are with a group of friends and you have told them to cross the road. You then realise that telling them to break the law was wrong, so you stop them before they cross. This is a better analogy as for the trolley problem, as pulling the lever didn’t carry any inherent risk, they were only under risk in the condition you didn’t pull it back. In contrast, for crossing the street, you’ve already created the risk the law is designed to prevent unconditionally. People may have already seen you cross the street which creates disrespect for the law. While someone may have already overheard your suggestion to cross the street or seen you pull the lever (before you pulled it back), this harm is still less then the harm caused by carrying the act to completion. In the crossing the street example, the most significant harms have already occurred, in the Trolley Problem, you can prevent them.
An analogy more similar to the crossing the street problem is imagining that you can bring one group back to life, in exchange for killing the other group. Perhaps this means the people who should have survived had you not interfered survive, but it also means that you killed two groups of people.
Let’s assume that the train will arrive at the intersection in five minutes. If you pull the lever one way, then pull it back the other, you’ll save someone from losing their job. There is no chance that the lever will get stuck out that you won’t be able to complete the operation on trying. Clearly pulling the lever, then pulling it back is superior to not touching it. This seems to indicate that the sin isn’t pulling the lever, but pulling it without the intent to pull it back. If the sin is pulling it without intent to pull it back, then it would seem very strange that gaining the intent to pull it back, then pulling it back would be a sin.
Instead of thinking about crossing the road, then trying to uncross it, imagine that you are with a group of friends and you have told them to cross the road. You then realise that telling them to break the law was wrong, so you stop them before they cross. This is a better analogy as for the trolley problem, as pulling the lever didn’t carry any inherent risk, they were only under risk in the condition you didn’t pull it back. In contrast, for crossing the street, you’ve already created the risk the law is designed to prevent unconditionally. People may have already seen you cross the street which creates disrespect for the law. While someone may have already overheard your suggestion to cross the street or seen you pull the lever (before you pulled it back), this harm is still less then the harm caused by carrying the act to completion. In the crossing the street example, the most significant harms have already occurred, in the Trolley Problem, you can prevent them.
An analogy more similar to the crossing the street problem is imagining that you can bring one group back to life, in exchange for killing the other group. Perhaps this means the people who should have survived had you not interfered survive, but it also means that you killed two groups of people.