There is a famous moral/ethical thought experiment called the Trolley Problem:

There is a runaway trolley/train that is about to hit and kill fie people who are tied to the tracks. You, as a bystander, can hit a switch and divert the trolley to a different track where one person is tied to the track. What do you do?

This came up a few times while I was developing the write up for these ethical rules. People do different things for various reasons:

• Utilitarian or Consequentialism: pull the lever – fewer lives lost.
• Deontological: do not pull the lever – the rules are the rules. Your choice will kill somebody.
• Virtue ethics: inaction – internal debate over what is right would run out the clock.
• Fatalism: walk away. Don’t get involved.

I think the situation is terrible, but I am not the cause. Using the little information I have at hand, I would pull the lever. I think five people dying is objectively worse than one person dying. If I had more information I might chose differently. Perhaps the one person is a child with their whole life in front of them or they are a famous doctor who is about to cure cancer (unlikely that I would recognize such a person, but let’s say) – I might chose the five over the one. Any action I take requires a choice and I would make the best choice I can given the situation. I would be unhappy to be in this situation for sure, but no guilt. I didn’t create the situation but I did have to deal with it.

This is Satisficing in action – I need quick action and there is no “correct” answer.

Note: this doesn’t engage Rule 1: Do Not Harm) as I am not harming. All paths lead to death, optimize.