I think should divert the train to the right killing one person.

  For this thought experiment, I

will be evaluating some insights about this experiment by focusing on the views of Utilitarianism
and Deontology about this experiment.  In this experiment, you are a train conductor on a
runaway train. The train heads straight for five men who will not have time to get out of the way,
and your train will kill them. But! You notice there is a track going to the right, and you have
enough time to pull the lever and turn onto that rack. One person is actually on the right track
who will die as assuredly as the five would if you stayed on their track. I will start by revealing
what John Stuart Mill would have me do in this situation followed by a contrast on that, based on
Kant's moral theory. 

John Stuart Mill would probably want me to divert the train to the right killing one
person,  because he believes in the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which states that we should
find the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. As he says "that the happiness
which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness,
but that of all concerned” (chapter 3. P155-156). What this means is that we should not be after
our own happiness or being beneficiary of our action, rather, what is right means the
maximization of the good of others. Saving five men in the train scenario produces more
happiness and less pain than killing five and saving one. “A right action produces more net
happiness than any alternative action everyone considered” (Chapter 3. p152). So according to
Mills, even if I might choose to keep the train moving straight, I couldn’t because I have to
consider people involved not just about me. To expatiate further, Mill's quote means that any
action is morally permissible in any circumstances, provided they produced good consequences. 
His reasoning here plants him firmly within the Moral Framework called "The Good" where
morality is judged looking at effects and consequences. Analyzing the scenario based on effects
and consequences, it will be morally right for me to pull the lever and move the train onto the
right track thereby killing one person which will have lesser pain than killing five. Our only duty
is to ensure that effects are maximization of the good" (chapter 3. P150). It clearly shows that the
end justifies the means. 

On the other hand, Kant reasons from the framework called "The Right", where morality is
measured by considering respect, dignity, and justice. Thus, he would most likely tell me to
head straight to the five men.  Let the five die, if the only way to save them is to kill one person.
Kant argues that the type of action performed is morally important. There are no exceptions to
moral duties. One must do it at all cost. 
For one thing, Kant's moral theory requires us to follow the categorical imperative: one, which
states “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should only on
that maxim should become a universal law” (Chapter 3. P164). What Kant means here is that
one should not act on something unless it is true in every scenario. With reference to the train
experiment, Kant sees it that everyone has dignity, respect and justice. It will show dignity to
allow the train head straight and kill five men than divert it to kill one person. The diversion is
actually a killing. Killing is not a legitimate moral law. His position means that when one kills,
would he or she be willing to have others do so if everyone could consistently act on that maxim.
Kant argues that our actions have logical implications; he calls the implication a general rule of
conduct. He gives example of someone who feels its okay to lie for financial gains thus, making
lying a general maxim. However, lying is not a legitimate moral law and same person won’t be
comfortable if others do same.

So, you can see that he is primarily concerned about what is right and he would probably
conclude that I should keep heading straight for five men.

 Personally, I think I should pull the lever to go right to kill one person and save five instead of
moving head straight for the five men. Even though I might share some of the values
underlying Kant’s position, like justice for each person. I nevertheless would decide to pull the
lever and make the train turn onto the right track to kill one person because either way,
somebody must die. So it is better to save more than to save just one. I incline with Mill. My
reasoning here seems to fall under the framework called “The Good” because I am primarily focused on
saving more persons. Even though Kant will see my action as killing, I will argue that my action has no intention
to harm at all. If there was another save alternative I would have carried it out. So my action to divert the train to the
right and kill one instead of five was an unfortunate and unintended effect of my primary intention to save five
men.