At what point does it become ethically sanctioned to take the life of an innocent person? To what extent do people's moral institutions determine their perception of right or wrong? This article will evaluate how the “trolley problem” is evaluated by utilitarian and deontological philosophical approaches to morality and conclude on the correct position. This proposal raises controversial ideas about what constitutes morality and how each individual evaluates the situation and consequences of everyday dilemmas. The first paragraph explains the trolley problem along with how deontology and utilitarianism relate to the dilemma. Furthermore, after a critical analysis of the theories' approaches, I will discuss which solution would lead to the best result. I will argue in accordance with the utilitarian perspective, as it creates happiness for the greatest number of people who advance towards the general good. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayPhilippa Foot (1920-2010) presented the trolley problem dilemma situation this way, "the driver of a moving tram from which he can only steer" from one narrow path to another; five men work on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the trail he enters is doomed to be killed” (Wolff, 14). According to utilitarian moral theories, the ethical approach would be for the driver to swerve onto the one-man runway to spare the lives of five people by pursuing “the course of action that creates the greatest total happiness relative to unhappiness.” In support of his thesis, John Stuart Mill (1806-73) stated that "the happiness of each person is a good for that person, and general happiness, therefore, a good for the whole of all persons" (Mill, 1961/2001, pp. 35-36), in other words, in the case in which there could be more than one disposition, the best or best activity would be the one that creates the most overall happiness for the best measure looking at the common good. In contrast, deontological or duty-based theories define right action as a set of moral rules that place limits on what we can do, as it would be fair and equal for all to let the cart make its way towards the tracks with five people. And as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the philosopher who established deontology, states "act as if the maxim of your action were to become with your will a universal law of nature", in other words, it would not be moral to intervene in the situation, letting five people die is morally more correct than interrupting and killing the individual, because the moment we apply Kant's categorical imperative it enters the moral system, it brings the blame of the murder onto you, “actions are wrong if they break morality rules." Although both theories have strong and convincing arguments, after critically evaluating the unique situation and possible outcomes, I personally believe that making use of a utilitarian perspective mindset is the best option in the trolley dilemma, since saving the most human lives creates the problem greater good. The deontological perspective might argue that this is not the “right action”, however in my personal moral institution achieving the greater good is more important than sacrificing one's integrity and doing what Kant would call the “wrong thing”. Being an example of consequentialism, utilitarianism “judges the rightness or wrongness of actions based on their consequences,” if the consequences are better when you approach the problem using utilitarianism, then isn't that the right perspective? Furthermore, as EF Carritt (2876-1964) explains in his book.