Okay... *You* are the doctor in the second.

(The thought here is that I'm doing what I can to bring the cases into line. The thought is that the solution is easier insofar as the cases are different, but the more similar they are the harder it is to justify going one way in one case and a different way in the other case. Trying to build the strongest examples to make things harder for ourselves).

> I have to decide what the doctor should do. In the first case, it's a "lever" not a human that is the deciding factor.

Okay... What if operating on the one consisted in *you* (the surgeon) pulling a lever that directed a machine to insert a breathing tube into the guy such that he would live. Similarly to how the lever in case A directs a machine to do whatever to make the train change track. In both cases... Pulling a lever alters the course of events that would happen if you failed to pull the lever. In the first case your pulling the lever causes 1 to die and 6 to live. In the second case your pulling the lever causes 6 to die and 1 to live.

If 'killing' (pulling the lever) was worse than 'letting die' (not pulling the lever) then we would expect that we would reccomend not diverting the train in the first case and letting the one die in the second case (which is the exact opposite of our intuitions). So the thought is... The 'killing' and 'letting die' distinction can't be what is driving our intuitions here (we reccomend 'killing' in one case and 'letting die' in the other).