Blurring the lines of justice

(First I apologize for the late post, football kept me past 5 so i was unable to post it on time)

In class we discussed the philospher John Mills. He is a utilitarian and believes that justice is an action (or inaction) that results in the greatest happinss in the greatest number of people. Basically saying in some instances that something that is traditionally bad (i.e. lying, killing...etc.) can be considered just. We talked about the trolley problem, which is a problem in which someone is on a trolley and they are headed straight for 10 people. If the pull a switch they will not hit the 10 but they will hit 1 person. The problem is what to do? Most people say they would pull the switch and kill the 1 to save 10. But this becomes more complex in some other examples. Like when you are one a bridge and you can either push someone in fron of the trolley or let it kill 10 people. Again man say they would kill the one but would they really be able to push someone to their death? The issue with human nature in problems like this is that it we truly cannot know what we would do. In the first example, yes most people would be able to pull the switch, because no matter what you do your action will kill people and in this case you can seperate yourself out and make the best objective decision. But in the bridge example, it iss much harder to justify pushing someone to their death and then you would also have to face the fact that you physically killed them yourself.

The problem i suggest is another trolley problem, but in this instance you are on the tracks yourself and on the other side of the tracks is your family and on the trolley there are friends and some important people, such as the president). you can let the trolley hit you, but this would result in your death and the deaths of everyone on the trolley or you can let the trolley hit your family, saving yourself and everyone on the trolley. what do you do?