My high school debate captain and I were having a discussion. For our purposes, utilitarianism is defined as striving to maximize the "greater good", that is, the best for all of society. Our scenario for the trolley problem was, on one side 5 people that had absolutely nothing to contribute to society, or even those that were detrimental to society. On the other side is a president or visionary or some person that had more to contribute to society than the other 5 combined. From my understanding of the basic premise of utilitarianism, one following this principle would choose the 5 to be run over, due to your goal of maximizing impact on society. My debate captain disagreed, saying that utilitarianism would promote killing the one over the 5. Can someone explain why her answer was utilitarianism and not egalitarianism(as she argued) and why my answer was not utilitarianism? I've found arguments supporting both sides, and I'm getting a little confused.
P.S.: There is no default choice for the trolley. Suffice it to say that if you don't choose one or the other, a billion visionaries will die and the world will be destroyed. Disregard the action of pulling the lever.