In Kantian moral theory, the difference between the two situations lies in the fact that in the surgeon problem, only one patient is used as a means, which in Kantian ethics is not morally permitted. In the trolley problem, it is discussed that the main action of flipping the switch to change the track layout, if done independently, is not intended to harm others. However, the death of this person on the alternate track is a consequence of the switch being flipped, therefore this person is not used as a means to save the five people on the other track. Kant invented the formula of the end in itself which motivates us to act in such a way that we always treat humanity, whether in our own person or in the person of others, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end. In the surgeon problem, one patient would be killed just to save the other five patients in need. The single patient is then used as a means, which should never be allowed according to Kantian moral ethics. The utilitarian approach, on the other hand, would conflict with the Kantian perspective of this situation. Utilitarianism, also called the Greater Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right to the extent that they aim to promote happiness, and are wrong to the extent that they tend to produce the opposite. A utilitarian would argue that killing five people is worse than killing one, because utilitarianism favors maximizing happiness, and the greatest happiness would come from saving five people, even if that meant killing one. to achieve this result. Regarding the difference between killing and letting die, utilitarianism maintains that there is no difference between the two, because they both result in the same consequences: death.** “For the