For the sake of philosophical exercise (and primarily because you jackasses have few moral qualms), it's time to dust the rug and argue for the best solution to the problem :
If a trolley is on a diverging track and it will inevitably run over 1. five relatively skinny people 2. one fat man, who should we kill?
Any outcome for any reason is fine, but explain your rationale.
The one fat man, because I am extremely fatphobic.
I'd try to convince the fat guy to take a few steps to the left so that when I push him, he can get hit after the 5 skinny people. It's their fault for fucking around on the tracks of a deadly rogue trolley. And it's the fat dude's fault for this being funny.
Push the fat man in front of the trolley since he's still not going to stop it from killing the 5 skinny people.
Maximized the carnage for the greater good since now there are six less people consuming finite resources on the planet.
Lame Pareto Optimality :
Ideally, you'd derail the train prior to it reaching its destination. Conductor seats have some (minimal) safety measures to mitigate damage to the conductor, and as such you'd save all parties involved. Everyone walks away free to live with none of their right to live violated (except maybe the conductor, who has insurance and a union to support his family thereafter).
Minimin Principle :
Suppose that in the normal operating day of a train, incidents like these occur often enough to expect regular lawsuits (albeit, frivolous, as the train company is not responsible for tying people to the tracks / having fat men shoved in the way). Assuming that the railroad companies and stations have had all their safety measures bypassed, would it be optimal to maximize casualties and seek the worst possible outcome?
Maybe, if we assume that :
As the operation of the railroad is not made for the expressed purpose of making sausage fillings out of people, our railroad stands to lose money over events they have no control (and yet are still liable) over. To minimize the amount of compensation per claimant, killing as many people as possible at one time would add more individuals to the overall class, at which point the reward for each claimant could be diminished (if the rate at which the reward is divided is greater than the rate of settlement costs per death). This reduces the incentive to sue the railroad company, and if we're lucky, charges may be dropped due to the lack of proportional reward to the effort put into the lawsuit. The capability of the litigating lawyers does not increase in spite of the greater amount of people affected.
You should, in this case, time the derailment to maximize casualties and create a large write-off for the tax year.
If the fat man is on the track but you have to switch the track to kill the fat man, abstain from doing so and let natural events run their course. The five fucks on the track deserved to die for simply being on the tracks.
Likewise, if he's standing at the platform, don't push him; he has done no such thing to warrant getting pushed, and as such does not deserve to die.
There's two interpretations :
1. The fat man dies because society overall benefits from having more bodies, even if it's five skinny guys who survive. After all, five skinny guys can experience more pleasure (and therefore utility) than any single individual can.
2. The five skinny people die because their adverse living conditions has caused them to be skinny; they would have never expected to experience much pleasure compared to the one fat man anyway, so you could cut the losses then and there.
It's almost like moral desert in the sense that you leave people alone to their own devices; after all, if the five individuals chose to die on train tracks or the fat man elects to sacrifice himself to save the other five, there is nothing necessarily wrong. All individuals involved have elected to live and die by their own choosing.
If we're taking a softcore approach to egalitarianism (in that it is a correction to classic libertarianism), we should be approaching this from an equal opportunity point of view; everyone should have an equal opportunity to die and live. In this case, throw the fat man onto the track / divert it to him, and jump in front of him and defer the responsibility to the next person in control. Better yet, set the track to half and cross your fingers.
If we're taking a fundamentalist approach to this, in the sense that we're trying to create equality of outcome, it should be best considered to throw the fat man and yourself onto the train tracks in a wild rush. By randomizing the order in which people will die, everyone will have an equal opportunity to die in an equally gruesome and slow/fast manner. Life is terrible enough as-is, and the sooner we're out of the equation, the better.
fat dude deserves to die for wasting his one life, and his incredible human form, by giving into sloth and indolence
Kill the fat man. Fresh food for the skinny people to eat and when they become fat repeat the process.
This is quite the moral quandary...
If there was enough time, the best solution would be to announce various impromptu rallies or similar on social media, and then derail the trolley into whatever crowd had gathered; thereby saving those six for a potential future redo.
I would most likely try to play the hero and stop the trolley but end up causing a fire which would kill everyone in the area. This would also result in hardly any survivors (including the CYS members who are in the middle of pushing the fat man onto the track/ deciding who to kill) and after I die, I would claim it was all part of a plan to cause as much chaos and destruction as possible.
Edit: I see my past self has already beaten me to it. Which part of the timeline did I mess up now?
Also, just want to point out that this is a strange combination of two trolley problems.
The first trolley problem is that the trolley is heading towards a group of five people. You can either let it carry on, or you can divert it on to a track that has only one person. (Most people agree that it is morally best to divert the trolley, so that it only kills one person.)
The second trolley problem is that you are standing on a bridge, with a fat man, and below you is a trolley heading towards a group of 5 people. You can either let the trolley kill the five people, or you can push the fat man in front of the trolley, which would stop the trolley from crashing into the other five people because he's just so fucking fat. (Strangely, in this situation, most people agree that it's morally wrong to push the man infront of the trolley, despite it having the same result as the first problem. The reasoning seeming to be that in the first problem, you are indirectly responsible for the one person's death (the trolley kills him) whereas in the second problem, you are directly responsible for the man's death (you personally kill him.) And people seem to think that it's worse to physically push a man to his death than it is to divert a trolley to kill him.)
But, of coure, this is CYS, and has just dissolved into everyone talking about how much we hate fat people. ^_^
I don't think the specifics matter much in this case; either way, the responsibility falls to you to decide who lives and who dies.
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."