1.

The person in the second ravine asks you to divert the train to avoid killing those in the first
ravine. Would you pull the lever? Why or why not?

- I'll deviate the train if the person in the second ravine asks me to, so that we don't kill anyone
in the first ravine. Because saving the lives of five individuals in the first ravine is more essential
than saving the life of one person, I would pull the lever even if it meant sacrificing one of the
people in the second ravine. Instead, then merely thinking about one person's life, I believe I
should consider several. At the absolute least, I saved a life, but it would be better if I could save
the lives of more people. Although each person's life is valuable and precious, it doesn't matter
how many lives I've saved.

2. The people in the first ravine ask you not to divert the train to the second ravine. Would you
pull the lever? Why or why not?

- Even if those in the first ravine argue against it, I shall pull the lever to the second ravine.
These several individuals from the initial ravine could perhaps affect additional personal
adjustments, in my opinion. I can't afford to give up many things for one, though.

3. The five (5) people in the first ravine are convicted criminals, and the person in the second
ravine is a world-famous cancer specialist on the verge of a significant breakthrough. Would
you pull the lever? Why or why not?

- It is only fair to pull the lever in accordance with the moral imperative to behave in
accordance with just judgment. The worth of a human life cannot be measured. Thus, it
cannot be presumed that the life of the cancer specialist is more valuable than the lives of
the five offenders. The option that will result in the least amount of harm is the optimal
choice in this situation. Pulling the trigger after making that decision.