It was difficult as knew that child would end up suffering. However, as I do not know any of the children I would rather see 1 suffer than a group of 5.
I am helping more people by switching the lever.
I decided to move the lever because one child missing their meal seemed to be a better outcome than five children missing their meal.
Failing to switch the ever means more children lose their meals
One child without a meal is better than five children without meals
they children might have enough to share with the one child
To feed the 5 other children who were hungry
Depriving one person for the sake of many is, horrifically, the best thing to do
If I didn't move the lever, 5 children would have gone without food instead of just 1. Even though it first felt wrong to move change the switch and to "interfere" with "nature", after thinking about it the rational option is to change the switch.
I would rather feed 5 children than just the one as more people will benefit from this decision, although I still believe it is wrong to leave one child without
Because it's better one child lose their meal than five.
Feed five mouths or feed one mouth. Save five lives or save one life. What is morally wrong is giving someone a choice like this in the first place.
I decided to move the lever because causing 1 child to lose a meal is not as bad as 5 children
For the greater good, better for 5 children to get a meal and 1 to lose than for 5 children to lose a meal and 1 to get.
Placing the importance of one life over others is a worrying choice, logically it is right, but consciencely it is worrying.
It's better for one child to not have food than 5
Moved the lever because I will be responsible for less people's suffering
because it is better that 1 person loses a meal than 5.
More children would get to eat by switching it
The needs of the many outwight the needs of the few
It is only the outcome that matters. Moving the lever brings the best outcome.
It is not morally right to choose whether children in an impoverished country get money or go without based on the choices of a psychological experiment. If the psychologists have the money to donate, everyone should get a meal.
Giving five meals is better than one, but who am I to decide that and change their fate by switching the lever?
Proportional reduction in the amount of food given to the orphanage is less therefore the orphanage can choose to feed all the children a little less
Feed more children but also they could share all the meals with all of the children, including the single child, rather than sharing the one meal with all of the children as this wouldn't be sufficient.
The lesser of two evils, it would be in the interest of the greater good to feed the most children possible
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
if the options are between one child losing their meal and 5 children losing their meal, the better option seems to be for just one child to lose the meal.
I would opt to help the most people, though I would feel guilty about the child with no food.
decided to move it as at least 4 children would have a meal as opposed to none. the 1 child would have lost his meal either way.
I thought that 5 children losing meals is worse than one. Although I wouldn't want to make either decision.
If the lever stayed as it was, the ball would likely hit the grouped photos and all of the children would lose their meal. However if it was moved then just one child would lose his meal. Hopefully the others would each give some of their food to the child who lost out. Either way it would be unfair for any of them to lose out on a meal
It's better that 5 children are fed than one child going hungry
To minimise the number of children losing their meals.
I moved it because only one person will lose out instead of 5
because i felt sorry for the one child to watch 5 other children eating why he was starving
Because it could be beneficial and help the orphans
because maybe there would be a chance that maybe it wouldnt hit any of them
As humans we should try and improve the quality of life for as many people as possible, not "let things take their course"
Decided, not knowing the individual circumstances of the children, that it was better for five children to get a meal at the expense of one, rather than the other way round.
I think to even have such a scenario is wrong and would not wish to decide who should get a meal.
I have not the right to make this kind of desicion.
The total amount of food loss would be minimized this way.
As far as I am concern is that one person sacrifices but a group of people saved.
more lives are saved, more good are done.
It is definite someone lose his food no matter what I do,so the fact is not decided by my choice.What I should do is to cut loss.
I don't wanna change or control anyone's destiny.
For the interest of many is superior to that of one.
Everyone has an equal opportunity to live or enjoy the food.
you can save five students just because of one action of yours
I decided to switch the direction because in such a dilemma, considering the amount of two sides, sacrifice of the minority is relatively fairer than that of the majority.
there is no evidence that 5 kids are more valuable than 1.
I will not switch that 'thing' , as I have not right to kill one in order save the other five. When the pre-conditions of this situation can not be changed, I won't do anything otherwise it is not fair.
I have been informed that they have already donated money to those children in need.
Because I don't want any of them lose their food
cause it gives the five children rather than 1 food
because the researchers have donated money for all children's meals, then it is unfair to ignore any children in that group.
because sacrafice one person can make the others get the essentials
personally, i want five kids get food not only one child.
no human being has the right to decide other people's life or death, let alone children
this cannot be treated as a mistake. I just choose a way that will beefit more children.
The child may be face more difficult to find a food by himself. But the other five children can help each other, while the another child has not any company.
in reality not every one could be saved, hv to make some sacrifice to save more。
It's more realistic to choose to give more children food.
It's difficult to find proper words in English to describe my motivation. If I can write in Chinese, it would be much better. Meaning would be lost in translation.
It should be the best choice to guarantee the donation even one unit.

I do not want to see anyone die. However, I would rather see one person die than five. This is very difficult though as I am in effect playing God.
Did not want the responsibility of someones death
I am saving more people by pulling the lever.
To save five lives and sacrifice one as opposed to the other way around.
Five people dying is more damage than one
By not acting, more people would lose their lives, and more family members and friends will be affected than if the train only hit one person
Better to save five people than one person
Those 5 men could more likely afford to support the family of the one man
Because I would get into trouble with the law of the country for manslaughter/murder.
Because I would rather save the larger amount of workers as it will affect a fewer number of people
Because I'd rather be responsible for the death of one man than five.
There are some things out of the control of man. Death and life should not be tampered with. Let nature take her course.
1 death is not as severe as the death of 5 people
Better to save 5 lives at the expense of another than to lose 5 lives.
Again logically it makes sense to change the course of the train but by doing so I would be directly involved in the death of the individual but then if I did nothing then technically I would be responsible for the death of the five men. Logically I answer yes but in reality the pressures may not lead to the same decision.
Pull because I will be accountable for 1 death and 5 rescues, rather than 5 deaths and 1 rescue
it is better to save 5 people and kill 1, than to let 5 people die when you could prevent it.
the side track incurs a lower loss of life
Neither situation would ever be morally right because both lead to loss of life; however, in this case, the loss of life would be less.
Though by not putting the lever more people die, I am in no way directly responsible for their deaths whereas if I pulled the lever the individuals death would be entirely on me.
Five lives can be saved however it is easier to get the attention of one person and get them to move than it is to move five people
Overall, it's the saving of 5 lives compared to one
I would rather one person died than five.
Five against one gives a net gain of four lives.
Death is certain so I would opt to save most lives
although it is wrong to intentionally cause the death of a human, i feel it is better to do so if 5 lives were to be saved
I couldn't intervene so that one life is swapped for another.
Same as before, better for one person to suffer than for five. Plus the one person may be able to get out of the way of the train
Train workers are difficult to replace, also they probably have families etc...
I pulled it to save 5 lives at the expense of 1 life
i dont believe you can say 5 lives is worth more than 1
because if i could save more lives i would
Because the people working on the tracks are aware of the risks of this job and have accepted the dangers.
Given the short time allowed for reaction, my intuition is that I want to save more peoples' lives.
At that situation, I prefer save more person.
more lives are saved, more good are done.
It is definite someone will die no matter I do, so the fact is not mt choice. Morals means I cannot do nothing when the five people will die.
This time, because it is decided by the nature(or the destiny if you prefer), I am no one but an individule like them all, I choose to give up the right to choose, for me as long as they are life, they are equal, and i don't want to lose any of them, so I will leave it to the nature to choose.
I don't think taking this action will save all the people on the train because I don't know where is the other track leading to.
Everyone is equal before life. I have no right to decide who should live or die.
Same reason as before though I clearly know that every man's life is equal and it makes no difference whether it is one or five.
Because five people's lives are more important.
Same as before. If it happens, it is destiny. It is not evident to say 5 worth more than 1.
I have no power to decide the fate determined. And each life is equal, this is not the problem with quantity.
We should not decide other people's lives.
hard to decide，but one died is better than five.
if i dont move the switch, 5 instead of 1 will die.
the greatest happiness for the greatest people
Too much blood if I imagine five people are dead in a train crush
the five people could notice the train approaching, they could promptly ran away from the trail
life is precious. I want to save more people.
It is worth saving 5 lives by killing one guy.
It's just like the previous situation but more urgent. In my opinion, five people die is more serious than only one dies.
we should fair to everyone. its their destiny

This is much easier than the two previous scenarios (Children in an orphanage and men on a train track). The contestants knew the risks of the show before signing up. I would rather see 5 keep their money and 1 lose than 1 win and 5 lose.
More people will win if I press the button.
More people are keeping their prize money than otherwise
Since there are no serious consequences for pressing or not pressing the button, I would prefer to remain a passive observer in the game show and let the events unfold however they may
It's only money, doesn't really matter who wins or loses
Money is not fundamentally important so it would not be devastating for some people to lose £100. I would not like to have that unnecessary burden on my shoulders so I would let fate take its course in this situation.
Pressing the button allows a greater number of people to get the money
Because it would be anonymous and it isn't a life or death scenario like the previous one
Because less people will be affected by my decision if i push the button
It's a game show. I'm not getting into moral dilemnas over a game show.
It is only a game with little on stake, so deciding to let five people win would not be a big decision. However, if I had a preference to the single player then maybe my decision would be different and I would not press the button/
It's just a game show, there's no reason to take responsibility for what goes on in it.
Not press - because it's my choice and it would really depend on the contestants
Because the contestants are not really losing anything. They entered the gameshow without the additional £100.
It is better to have more winners of the gameshow than less. Since it's only a gameshow, the moral consequences are less severe than the previous questions.
It's an insignificant amount of money on a gameshow, it'll be much more entertaining to watch five contestants lose than just one.
Game of chance, consequences are not fatal
People could share the winnings rather than just the £100
The individuals came to the show without any money, they wouldn't be losing anything.
Slightly more complicated, but greater potential pleasure vs potential suffering.
It is a game show so the decision is not of great importance. I would rather not take part and let the game play as if I wasn't selected.
No one will die whatever i do, so i won't interfere.
It's not much money, not a decision that particularly bothers me.
did not press as money is not important so if 5 people lose it it isn't as destroying - a meal/human life is more important.
Again, when it's not life or death, the majority win out. Better for five people to win some money than one person.
Again, better for one person to lose out than five others.
it's just a game and the more people that win the better
It's more entertaining to watch people suffer on TV, especially when they're winning
To maximise the number of people gaining prize money.
To save the money of 5 people at the expense of 1 person
it's money nhot someone life so i wouldnt feel that bad and it's not a signifcant amount of money
i feel that maybe i have no right to make that decision
This is a game show without very serious consequences. It would mean the total winnings of the show would be 500 opposed to 100 which will help more people.
Undecided whether I would press the button or not. It's only £100 at stake and people entering game shows expect to win/lose often based on luck rathen than their skill/knowledge. Don't feel I would be doing anything wrong by not pressing the button, it would make the game more interesting, I think it would depend on the personalities of the five people and one person.
It's not my decision to be involved in the game, so I refrain from participating.
There is nothing to do with me.It is a game.
I am not emotionally involved in the situation. The result of who won or how many persons won would be indifferent to me. I don't bother change anything.
As mentioned before more people can earn money.
£100 is noting, I would leave this to God's humor.
It is just a game. I don't like join in the game.
It just a game,and it refers to money rather than life.
Why should we change others destiny? Please face to reality.
I simply do not want to participate the game, funnily the reason is somehow the same as that in the last part, which is that i dont want to or i dont think i have the right to intervene.
I have no right to deprive him or her of his/her prize.
As an audience, I will probably happier to see more participants get rewards.
Because the benefits for five people are more important.
It is not fair for the one already won the prize.
Same again. Why do we have three same type of question?
It's just a game. It's interesting to get involved and play it.
i do not have power to decide which one could win or lose
Cause it makes the 1 person lose his award
the greatest happiness for the greatest people
It's not fair to destroy that one particular participant's reward in exchange for the winnings of the other five
I thought this 100 pound is not essential for their lives, so it is not that much important for the participants to get or not get them
i think it is these five guys destiny. a ball came must have its reason. i have no right to let that one lose his prize.
money is not as important as life in my mind. and this is their luck. if i do so. it is unfair to the latter
I just do not want those 5 guys to get 100 pounds
thz not directly about our lives and need of food. In thz case, it' cruel in sacrifising somebody because he' the minority
More people get prizes may mean that more opportunities will be provided. More families will be changed into a more bright future. Of course, an opposite situation may occur, but I do believe people are kind other than evil.
It is just the entertainment so I will not switch it.