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

Money can by happiness

That's not even the argument you're supposed to make. You're dodging the trolley problem entirely. Money buying happiness is a completely different claim, and honestly, it's weaker than what you should be defending. The real question is whether you'd kill one person to save five. If your answer is yes, you're already admitting that consequences matter more than rules. If money can buy happiness, that just means you're measuring outcomes in dollars instead of lives. You've actually strengthened my case: if outcomes are all that matter, then killing one to save five becomes a simple utilitarian calculation. So which is it, do consequences matter or not?