Your English is better than my whatever language you speak . I can tell that English isn ' t your first language , honestly , but you are still good at it . Watching foreign movies has never improved my understanding of those languages . The organ harvesting example , to me , illustrates that quantity of life isn ' t the only concern . Quality of life of all people would be decreased by knowing that you can have your body violated extremely against your will . It would make living less secure and enjoyable in that society , so I can disapprove of forced organ donation on utilitarian grounds . In the train switch situation , you have two groups of people who are equally innocent but have also equally , probably , put their lives at risk by standing on the tracks . I haven ' t thought before if I would make a different decision if I knew that the group of two had carefully checked first to make sure the switch wouldn ' t send the train their way while the group of ten had been reckless in not checking first before standing on the tracks . I think that might really change my decision . I might let the ten who were at fault die rather than the two who were not at fault . I don ' t know . I would probably save the one friend or family member if the train were headed for the group of ten . It would be a mostly emotional decision , rationalized by serving the value of protecting friends and family . But I don ' t know that I would direct a train heading for a family member to instead hit the ten people . I don ' t know that I could really morally justify the difference between inaction vs . action to save a family member . But I know I would have a harder time justifying one than the other . I avoid walking near buttons that control train tracks , just in case I might get stuck in a living ethics problem . I would certainly have trouble sleeping at night if I were the guy deciding how much money is too much to potentially save a life in highway design .