The ends do not justify the means.
This feels very similar to the trolley problem: a trolley is bearing down on 5 people tied to a track, you have the option to push 1 person in front of the track to stop it dead. Do you?
My answer is always no, do nothing. I don’t have the power to decide who lives and dies.
Obviously the whole point of it is that it’s supposed to be a hard to answer question and there is no answer righter than the other. It’s all down to personal philosophy and morals.
Theoretically the way I see it is if I do nothing then I’ve taken no part in the death of any person, which again isn’t my decision to make. If I push the person or pull the lever, then I’ve actively participated in killing somebody.
Now in practice, if I was actually presented with this scenario in real life the outcome could be different. It’s simple maths at the end of the day, either 1 person dies or 5. Maybe I would pull the lever because knowing that I could’ve saved 5 people would probably play on any sane persons conscience.
The variations of the trolley problem are where it gets truly interesting, for instance what if to save the 5 people you had to kill 1 child? Killing a child is obviously seen as much more heinous than killing an adult, quite rightly. So how many adults is a child’s life worth? 10? 20? How many does it take for someone to pull the lever?
What if it was a dog? Their lives are seen as not being as valuable as a humans, so would you kill a dog to save a person? What about 5? 10?
Would you push the man who is going to cure cancer to save 5 thieves and other petty criminals?
Such an interesting philosophical question.