Abstract
Unlikemost interpreters, I do not take it for granted that Kant’s decision would be to divert the trolley. Rather, I submit, the trolley ought not to be turned, given the Kantian difference between narrow and wide duties. It is a narrow duty not to kill innocent human beings, but only a wide duty to save them. Given the latitude of the wide duty (to save the five) and the narrow and negative character of the other duty (not to kill the one), it is morally obligatory to obey the latter, i. e., not to kill the one. Also, because of the latitude of the wide duty, no conflict of duties arises. I shall rebut three objections against this wide/narrow interpretation (as I will call it) and present three additional arguments supporting it. In conclusion, I will discuss the relevance of these findings for the ethical challenges that come along with autonomous vehicles.
