Why Intent Is Everything

I really enjoy philosophy, as you may know.

There is a particular thought experiment involving utilitarianism that I was introduced to a few years ago that's been kicking around in my brain this afternoon, since my discussion group decided (for whatever reason) to spend the entire class talking about it, even though we're not even on utilitarianism. But whatever. Thought experiments are fun, and, as I said, I've heard this case before and had a lot of time to formulate my arguments.

There are two scenarios, each one a slight variation of the other (although those variations actually introduce a pretty significant implication, as you'll see in a moment).

Imagine that you're standing on a bridge over a railroad track. There is a very large man standing next to you. As you look down, you notice that, a ways down the track from your position, there are five people tied to the track. And there's a train coming; in a few short moments, it will pass under your bridge and then proceed to plow right into the helpless victims. This, of course, will kill them all. For the purposes of this argument, however, you know that the large man standing next to you is massive enough that, should you push him from the bridge onto the track, it would be enough to slow the train and save the five people. The large man, however, will die as a result. The question, then, is whether or not you are morally obligated to push the man onto the track.

In the second scenario, you are standing at an intersection of the railroad track, where it splits off in two directions. On one track, there are five people tied to it, while the other track has only a single helpless victim tied to the rails. Once again, there is a train hurtling towards you. The track is currently set to plow through the five people, but, once again, you can intervene if you so chose, as there's a switch-box beside you. If you flip the switch, it will change the course of the train so that it only kills the one person. Again, what is the morally correct course of action?

My own personal thoughts vary between these cases. In the first instance, I would not push the large man onto the track, even though to do so would mean saving five people. The reason for this is that, yes, while I would be saving people, I would also be deliberately choosing to kill the large man, as his death would be the direct and intended result of my actions. I would very much be violating his right to life as a self-aware individual. Even though people would die through my inaction, it would not be murder in that I did not choose directly to kill them. Rather, their deaths would be an admittedly horrible, but unintended consequence.

In the second case, I would choose to throw the switch and divert the train onto the track with the one victim. The reason for this is because my expressed intention is to save people, which is what I am doing when I flip the switch. As a result of my actions, the one person will die, but it is not my expressed desire to kill him, as it would have been had I pushed the large man off the bridge.

To sum it up, in the first case: I decide to murder the large man. As a result, more people are saved.

In the second case, I decide to save as many people as I can. As a result, one person still dies.

Do you agree with my thinking about why intention is, at least in these cases, more important that the actual actions that occurred? I'm interested to hear any thoughts on this little experiment.