The common ethical dilemma, "the trolley problem", gives two options; you can do nothing and the quickly-approaching trolley will kill five people tied to the track _or_ you can pull a lever and the trolley will be diverted to another track, killing only one person. The core of this is a choice between _deontology_ and _consequentialism_ or _utilitarianism_. The deontological point of view argues that it is ethically wrong to take any action that kills; to pull the lever would be to take a life, to value one life over another (or another five), which is ethically wrong. Deontology judges morality based on actions, rather than actions' consequences. (1) The consequentialist or utilitarian (utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism and relevant to this dilemma) argues that it is ethically wrong to let five people die when it could be restricted to only one as, when valued equally, five lives are more important than one. Consequentialism judges morality based on consequences rather than actions (or the reasoning for those actions) (2), while utilitarianism aims to create the most happiness for the most individuals, valuing all individuals' happiness equally. (3) The consequentialist argument, to pull the lever and save the five, is clearly preferable. While, in and of itself, taking an action that kills someone is morally wrong, this is patently outweighed by the prospect of _saving_ five lives. To value deontology over consequentialism creates a broken world; the real experiences of individuals, and not the motivation behind the creation of those experiences, structure and affect our lives. We must value the effects of our actions, not solely any moral deliberation behind them if we want to live in a prosperous world. 1. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-deontology/ 2. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-consequentialism/ 3. https://www.thoughtco.com/basic-principles-of-utilitarianism-3862064

**TL;DR Yes, we should aim to save as many lives as possible but is it still permissible when it is my deliberate action that will bring about that death?** The Trolley Problem is the ethical dilemma regarding a runaway trolley that is heading towards a group of five people tied to the tracks. In this dilemma you happen to be by the lever which will switch the trolley to a different track, this track however has one single person on it. You are faced with two options: You can either pull the lever so that it switches tracks and kills the single person or allow it to kill the five individuals. Furthermore, you would not be able to stop the trolley in time to avoid hitting either parties involved. What is the best course of action to proceed with? -On face value it might appear that the best course of action would be to push the lever. Sacrificing one life would be better than allowing the loss of five. In the words of Jeremy Bentham, it is the action that will cause the greatest amount of happiness. -However, what this dilemma draws out is the distinction between an act and an omission. In pulling the lever you are acting in a way that brings about the death of another. Allowing the trolley to follow its course is an omission. An absence of involvement. This however depends on how you view an omission; some people would see not acting as worthy of blame but under UK law, only if you’re under a duty of care e.g: a doctor or a lifeguard, would you be guilty of failing to act. -Ultimately, there are relevant points on both sides of the argument. We can recognise the value of life and wanting to save as many people as possible. However, this involves having to act in a way that will result in the death of another individual.

**Not to impugn the merits of Kantian deontology, the utilitarian solution is more practical than that of the deontological perspective.** The Trolly Problem is remarkable since it presents a unique scenario in which the two major normative ethical theories — utilitarianism and deontology — are pitted diametrically against one another. Utilitarianism, which contends that that which maximizes utility and happiness for the most, would naturally offer the solution of pulling the lever; deontology, which contends that every person is the end of moral deliberation and we all must abide by the categorical imperative, would require us to standby idly. Since two different theories — not necessarily mutually exclusive by principle — give two completely different answers, one must compare and debate the merits of these two normative ethical models. Suppose the number is not five people on the original railway track, but ten, twenty, or even a hundred. No matter how many lives are at stake, deontology would, without mercy, mandate omission in the scenario, on the grounds that the life of the one person on the other track cannot be used as a means. I appreciate the nobleness that deontological ethics assign to human life, but we must recognize that, on a practical level, sometimes one's personal benefits, including life, must be sacrificed for a higher good. Suppose it is one thousand people on the original track: would anyone accept the outcome that one thousand people perish merely for the survival of one person? Kant does prescribe that all men should be treated as members in the kingdom of ends, and that actions are moral to the extent that they treat individuals as ends of moral deliberation. A question to be asked in this scenario is: is inaction not an "action"? Is inaction not subject to moral supervision or the categorical imperative? Suppose I see a person drowning in a lake and I turn my eye away. I did not commit any action that violate the categorical imperative, yet my inaction shows clear disregard to the sanctity of human life. Hence, we must be aware that both actions and inactions are, regardless of which normative ethical theory we use, under the same moral supervision. Returning to the original topic: Kant would argue that the action of pulling the lever will use a person as a means. Yet, is not the inaction of not pulling the lever the same? Watching five people (or even more, arbitrarily more) perish for the sake of the life of one person is likewise tolerating five people's lives perishing for the sake of one person. Hence, even if we do not consider the utilitarian perspective, not pulling the lever still cannot be justified. The decision to pull the lever is certainly not perfect, and we certainly do not hope that such a tragic scenario comes in real life. Yet it is the only alternative we have.

**To pull the lever or not to pull the lever, that is the question - and a really horrid one at that.** • The reason I’m against this statement, is because I don’t think this hypothetical scenario tells us anything about someone’s morals or character. This is because _either_ option results in innocent death; pull the lever and you are making the conscience decision to kill 1 person or don’t pull the lever and let 5 innocent people die. • I know this is looking into it deeply, but I don’t have the right to decide who lives and who dies. If I pull the lever, I’m deciding to save the lives of 5 in return for killing 1. And although numerically that preserves more lives, who am I to determine that those 5 lives are any more important than the 1 life? • You can also add [lots of ifs and buts into this scenario](https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/why-i-wouldnt-pull-that-lever-2540d4f91fc6) which inevitably alter your answer; What if it was _5 prisoners_ and _1 Nobel prize winner_? What if it was _5 old people_ and _1 child_? What if it was _5 ordinary citizens_ and _1 member of the Royal Family_? The point is, the decision to pull or not to pull the lever, is obviously going to change depending on who you ask because everyone, rightly, has different opinions, different morals, and different beliefs about right or wrong. But for me personally, I don’t know if I could make the decision to kill 1 to save 5, because that would suggest the value of life is statistical, and I don’t know if it is.