The wagon problem is one of the most popular ethical and philosophical issues. The question seems straightforward; of course, saving the lives of five is more important than saving the life of one. However, it is complicated by the fact that, in this case, the person behind the level, making the switch, is involved in the murder of the tethered one (DeMarco & Fox, 2020). Moreover, killing five is by default, and it will happen even if the person making a shift is not there. This peculiarity leads the problem in a slightly different direction, from choosing options for salvation to choosing options for killing. Nevertheless, I find the problem very interesting from an ethical point of view. I, too, have an opinion on the right choice. I believe it is necessary to act based on the situation, namely the need to turn the level.
Basically, inaction is also an action that entails inevitable consequences. Therefore, I believe the thesis that passivity would remove a person from the equation and thus absolve them of the guilt of killing one or five people is erroneous (DeMarco & Fox, 2020). If I were to turn a level, I would switch it by sacrificing one person to save five. Such a decision I justify with the ethical concept of saving as many lives as possible in critical situations (DeMarco & Fox, 2020). The same rule guides rescuers when they sacrifice themselves to save large numbers of people. In criminal law, killing five people is considered more severe than killing one. Minimizing casualties is an ethical choice and can only be made by turning the level toward one person.
Reference
DeMarco, J. P., & Fox, R. M. (2020). New directions in ethics: The challenge of applied ethics. Routledge. Web.