1. In today's reality, if you are just a passenger and don't have responsibility on the train, you will get your butt sued and your life ruined if you *do* something (like pull a lever) that results in that one person getting killed, even if it saves 5 lives. Sad, but true. Assuming that you are a good person who hopes to impact the world in a positive way, it would be globally unproductive to set yourself up for ruin, especially if you expect to impact more than 5 people in a truly meaningful way.
My, that sounded so pessimistic and utterly selfish. But what if a young Gandhi had pulled the lever, gotten sued for killing the single worker, and as a result, never was able to be in a position to rally for India's independence? (Depending on your political beliefs, we could construct a Churchill examples as well.) Extreme example? What if a Dad pulled the lever, got sued, and financially ruined his family, robbing his children of opportunities that they otherwise would have had?
I suppose it boils down to the question: how deterministic is the lever and the results? 100%, and sure, the lever is right. Plus, the courts would favor you if you could prove the 100%. But these things are rarely 100%, so you now have risks to weigh.
2. Same answer as #1.
3. I'm with Calvin, in philosophy. Teach to fish, that brings about the most benefit. But sometimes there's no opportunity to learn to fish if someone can't even eat on that day. I've never given $$ to someone on the street, but numerous times (actually very numerous) I have bought some food and circled back to give them the food. Kind of rubs me the wrong way, because I'd like to do something more permanent, but again, sometimes surviving *right now* is more the issue.
There, I've revealed a soft spot. Back to my Closed Borders and Small Government persona.
4. Again, love Calvin's answer. And if the guy on the phone is too involved in his call to care, then I'll go to the local shelter and give the money to them, plus some extra.
Manfred