Facts of the case: A runaway trolley threatens to kill five people standing beside a person. In between the five people and the person, stands a railway worker with a large backpack. The person realizes that if the railway worker is pushed onto the trolley tracks, the worker dies, but the bulk of the dead worker and his backpack are sufficient to stop the trolley from ramming over the five persons. It is assumed that there was no time for the person to snatch the backpack from the railway worker, cling on to his back, and jump himself to save the five people.

Ethical dilemma: The ethical dilemma in the given case is whether is it ethical to end one life to save five lives. According to functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the intuitions and emotions of a person should be observed before deciding on moral judgments. This case deals with judging about personal violations, considering that whether it is right to end a stranger’s life without his consent.

According to utilitarianism, the benefits of the action are compared rather than the consequences of the action. The act utilitarianism states that the utilities of the action should be examined than the dangers associated with the action. The rule utilitarianism states that the benefits of the action should be in conformity with the general rule of the subject. So, as per act utilitarianism, it is better to kill one person to save the lives of others. But as per rule utilitarianism, it is against the rule to kill a person how much ever benefits are in store.

To conclude no one has a right to kill a person or sacrifice a person’s life to save the life of others. As per the Jewish law, destroying a soul is compared to destroying whole world.