So you're claiming it isn't fair because you don't like the options? Too bad. Life isn't fair, and we have to deal with it.
But life is realistic. Humans are not robots and they wouldn't just cardboard cutouts sitting at the controls of a trolley unable to do anything. You still haven't shown any situation where this is the case.
Stop trying to squirm out of it. You asked, I provided.
You are saying that automated cars will either run down a person or swerve into something else causing harm or damage. How is stating the facts about automated cars also having automated brakes squirming out of it? You seem to want to create these unreal situations to prove your point.
Do you make a habit of not reading the links I provide? Or did you just not read this one? Because it clearly says in there: "A pregnant woman asleep in one of the houses was injured but managed to escape through a window and was uninjured by the lumber and steel train wheels that fell around her." What part of that indicates to you that they evacuated people?
OK fair enough. But it seems that this situation did not comprise of intentions to hurt or kill people. By the time the controller had been told that there were houses on track 4, it was too late to divert the carts or evacuate anyone. The point is they tried everything to advert harm or death so there is no intentional breach of morals. Your trolley example wants the driver to be a dummy driver and not try anything like they have chosen the best and only option is to run down someone. That's unreal.
Please show me how you determined it was the OBJECTIVELY right thing to do.
In that situation that would be the objectively right thing to do. Remembering that objective morality doesn't mean absolute morality in that we are never allowed to kill period. You keep getting objective morality mixed with absolutes. Objective morality means there is always an objectively right or wrong action in any given situation independent of human opinion. But, not that morals are set in stone for all situations as with absolute morality.
Nah, you're wrong.
If you claim that all morality is objective, then I only need to produce one counterexample to prove you wrong.
But if you are saying ALL morality is objective, you can't produce just one example and then say it proves all morality is objective. If I wanted to claim that all sheep are black, I can't just produce one black sheep and say it proves my point.
That's a false analogy fallacy (tongue twister, say that 5 times fast). Proving that there is objective morality is about whether there is something or not and not about whether there is more of one thing rather than another that already exists. So taking your sheep analogy I am only proving that sheep exist. I only have to do that once.
If there is some source of morality, some source that tells us objectively what is right and what is wrong, then what is this source?
For Christians this is Gods moral laws that are expressed through Christ's teachings. For others, it may be whoever that transient moral lawgiver is. But the nature of objective morality would mean there is only one transient moral lawgiver.
No, that is not science. Science does not come up with an idea and then cherry pick evidence to support that idea.
That is not how an assumption works in science.
Science operates on the
assumptions that natural causes explain natural phenomena, that evidence from the natural world can inform us about those causes, and that these causes are consistent.
Basic assumptions of science
Assumptions such as "All phenomena have natural causes", "nature is materialistic" and "knowledge is derived from the acquisition of experience".
Science looks at the evidence, formulates an idea, and then tries to disprove that idea. If the idea CAN'T be disproved, then we say that it is likely to be true.
No, the evidence comes later. First science makes educated guesses about something which is like an assumption based on a limited amount of information. Then they seek evidence to support that assumption. They can also make predictions so that they can narrow down what to look for.
Science doesn't look to disprove anything. It seeks to verify something through evidence. But it is hard to prove something with a negative. For example, showing that there is no evidence for God doesn't mean there is no God. Science would have to be all-knowing to do that. That is why I say that showing one example of objective morality can verify objective morality. But trying to disprove objectively morality withy a negative (that it is non-existent in a specific situation) will not verify that there are no objective morals.
There may be people who believe it is morally wrong to take any action that results in a life being lost. They believe that INACTION is the better option. Are you saying they are morally wrong for refusing to do something that directly results in a death? And what if the one person is a child, but the five people on the other track are elderly?
Like I said This situation is hard to determine. But that doesn't mean there is not an objectively right thing to do in this situation. The fact that there is a child I think doesn't make much difference. people use a child to give some emotional weight to their argument. But it is still life. In certain situations, a child makes a difference such as abuse as their innocence is being taken advantage of.
That is why I say in real life people will try everything to save everyone. The train cart example you gave those involved tried to do everything and this makes a difference as they are not just willingly ploughing into people. Therefore they are doing the right thing though it may not work out they are not morally culpable.
You've already done it. You've just said that you would find it hard to accept what you claim is objectively right.
No this does not prove anything. I have already shown why such as a negative doesn't prove anything and its a logical fallacy.
manner. Honour the creator, honour your parents, stop killing each other, stop stealing each others stuff (including spouses), and stop resenting what others have. DUH! In fact I can almost see God saying "DUH!" at the end of them. 
