[caphis]

Quote by: Michael Raizer The question when it is taken to the core level is, should lives be weighed on a number scale?

Absolutely, when you know nothing else at all. Since this hypothetical bars us from knowing anything qualitative about the people involved, our only choice is to make a quantitative decision.

Is three lives worth more than one?

I'm not content to say this universally, but in general, I think so.

Does that one person have any less of a right to live than the other three people combined?

They all have an equal right to live. But if one or three must die, it's much harder to make a case for killing three.

There are three people tied to the tracks, and one man walking beside the tracks. If for a fact that if you pushed that man onto the tracks, it would stop the train before killing the three would you do so?

Probably not. I seem to have misread the OP's scenario slightly -- the version I'm more familiar with defines you as the driver of the locomotive, thus forcing you into a decision making role. If you're a bystander to the situation, I don't think you have a moral responsibility to impose yourself on the scenario and take action, but I don't think I could judge anyone who would take action as being any "less moral." After all, even as a bystander, one could argue that by choosing not to act, you're choosing to allow the other three to die.

That decision, though, I think is better left up to the individual walking along the track. Would I push someone? Most likely not. Would I jump? Probably, *if* I knew that a) I would be successful in stopping the train and b) the only other loss would be the train itself (ie: no other passengers aboard, not carrying secret launch codes for nuclear countermeasures... you get the idea).