When approaching the cases of the Wagon Driver and transplantation, philosophers and people tend to run into a moral problem. In both cases, the doctor and the cart driver must choose between intervening on the problem they are facing, which in both cases will save five people, or letting the problem run its course, which will only save one person's life. 'a person. The common problem that philosophers face in these two cases is that the majority of people think that it is morally permissible to intervene in the matter of the charioteer, but morally forbidden to intervene in the matter of the transplants. How could this make sense if both cases are structured the same way? Shouldn't a person always want to save as many lives as possible or does it depend on the case? The Cart DriverIn the case of the cart driver and transplantation, the choices that the doctor and the cart driver must make may seem very similar, but what differentiates the two cases is the time they both have to make their decisions. decision. In the case of the cart driver, the cart 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 logistics of the situation such as those presented in class, because he shouldn't intervene because technically, he would murder a person if he turned onto the other track, instead of one. let five die as believed. be significantly less worse than killing. Additionally, more people would likely 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 wouldn't have to be questioned because he didn't have time to think hard enough for his morality to factor into his decision. It is also doubtful whether he actually wanted to kill anyone since the choice was presented so abruptly, unlike Transplantation..