1 hospital volunteer vs 3 convicted felons

Sacrificing one person rather than three minimizes the total loss of life. The felons’ convictions do not erase the equal moral value of their lives, so occupation and criminal status should not outweigh the difference in numbers.

Purely on numbers, sacrificing one life to spare three minimizes total deaths, and a person's past conviction does not diminish the equal moral worth of their life. Using criminal status to rank whose life is expendable would endorse a form of punitive killing that no legitimate ethical framework supports, so the count of lives is the decisive factor.

Minimizing total deaths is the core ethical imperative here: one death is preferable to three. All human lives have equal intrinsic value regardless of criminal history or volunteer status, so the numbers dictate sacrificing the single person on track A.

The moral decision should be based on minimizing the loss of life. Track A has 1 person, while Track B has 3, so sacrificing Track B results in fewer deaths overall. This utilitarian approach prioritizes the greater good.

The choice to sacrifice the single hospital volunteer rather than the three convicted felons follows a utilitarian principle of minimizing harm. While all human life has value, the greater number of lives preserved takes precedence over individual moral character assessments in this immediate life-or-death scenario. This decision prioritizes saving the maximum number of lives without making judgments about the relative worth of individuals based on their past actions.

Sacrificing the three convicted felons minimizes total harm, as fewer lives (1) are saved by diverting the trolley to Track A. Utilitarian ethics prioritize the greater good, even if the individuals on Track B have moral culpability.