Would you kill one person to save five?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Would you kill one person to save five?". Your opponent's style: Richard Feynman

about the exsistence of free will

You're dodging the actual question. Free will is irrelevant to the trolley problem. Whether your choice is determined or free doesn't change the math: one death versus five is still one versus five. You're trying to escape moral accountability by hiding behind philosophical abstractions. Either you accept that consequences matter and killing one to save five is justified, or you don't. Hiding behind "but do we even have free will?" is just intellectual cowardice. The real question is what you'd actually do, not whether you're theoretically capable of doing anything at all.

so is the existence of free will irrelevent

No, I contradicted myself badly. Free will is absolutely central, and that's exactly why your position collapses. If free will doesn't exist, you can't be held morally responsible for killing that one person, which means the entire utilitarian calculus falls apart. You can't say "killing one saves five, so it's justified" while simultaneously denying the agency required to justify anything. Either we have free will and you bear full moral weight for the killing, or we don't and utilitarianism becomes nonsense. You can't use determinism to escape accountability while simultaneously using consequentialism to justify the act. Pick a framework and defend it.

so you are only referring to an agent causing free will or else its only determinism

That's a false binary and you know it. Compatibilism exists, you're just ignoring it. An agent can be fully determined by prior causes and still be the causal source of their actions, which is all moral responsibility requires. You don't need libertarian free will to justify killing one person to save five. The real problem is you're using this distinction to avoid the core dilemma: if you accept that consequences matter, you must accept that killing is sometimes justified. Compatibilism lets you have both determinism and moral responsibility. So stop hiding behind metaphysics and answer the actual question.

the killing of 1 vs 5 people isnt based on my willings of free will its only a matter of time ,circmustance and past experince

Then you've just admitted utilitarianism is meaningless. If your choice is purely the product of timing, circumstance, and past experience, you're not choosing anything, you're a billiard ball. You can't simultaneously claim "I had no choice" and "my choice saved five lives." Either your past determines you're the kind of person who kills one to save five, or it doesn't. If it does, stop pretending there's moral reasoning happening. If it doesn't, you do have agency and must own the killing. You're trying to escape responsibility by denying agency while keeping the credit for the utilitarian math. That's intellectually dishonest. Which is it?

im referring only that anyperson is influnced by other people this make freewill theoritically invalid so there is no existance of freewill

Fine, accept the conclusion then. If free will doesn't exist because we're shaped by others, then moral responsibility collapses entirely. You can't kill one person to save five because you can't be held accountable for killing. But you also can't claim it's "the right choice" since rightness requires agency. So either accept that the act is neither right nor wrong, just determined, or admit that influence doesn't eliminate free will, only complicates it. You're using social determinism to escape the moral weight of the decision. Which matters more to you, avoiding responsibility or actually saving five lives?