When dealing with the cases of the Trolley Driver and the Transplant, philosophers and people alike tend to run into a moral problem. In both cases, the doctor and the transporter must choose between taking action on the problem they face, which in both cases will save five people, or letting the problem run its course, which will save only one person's life. The common problem that philosophers face with these two cases is that most people believe that it is morally permissible to intervene in the case of the Trolley Driver, but morally impermissible to intervene in the case of the Transplants. How could this make sense if the two cases are structured the same way? Shouldn't a person always want to save as many lives as possible or does it depend on chance? The Trolley Driver In the case of the trolley driver and the transplant, the choices that the doctor and the tram driver must make may seem very similar, but what differentiates the two cases is the amount of time that both have available to take their decision. In the case of the Trolley Driver, the trolley driver has to make a very quick decision about who to kill and who to save. He doesn't have time to think about the logistical aspects of the situation like the ones presented in class as if he shouldn't intervene because he would technically kill one person if he turned onto the other track, instead of just letting five die, as is believed. be significantly less worse than killing. Furthermore, more people would probably forgive his murders because they would understand the intense situation he found himself in with little to no time to make a perfect decision. His morality also shouldn't have been questioned because he hadn't had time to think enough for his morality to play into his decision. One can also question whether he really wanted to kill anyone since the choice was presented so bluntly, unlike the Transplant.