The trolley would need to slow to get around that tight curve, if it could even do it without derailing. It has no space to get up any sort of speed on the other side. The low front bumper and tiny wheels means the trolley would catch on the first person, either pushing them all or simply stopping. Likely three or four of the people would survive. Pulling the lever is the right choice, money or no money.

Trolley goes over the bill, duh. It isn’t a lawn mower.

The number of comments on this post dodging the question is frustrating. From a Utilitarian standpoint, pulling the lever is good. It doesn’t decrease the collective good but at least one person (you) benefits. I’m not too firm on Kantian ethics, but I can’t see how either action would consider the victims as a means or a goal in this constructed scenario. Accordingly, by Kantian ethics, it should be ethically neutral for you to pull the lever, though someone certainly is to blame for setting up this situation. However, I could also see a Kantian argument that one should never benefit from human suffering, even if one is not the cause of that suffering (based on the maxime of the action). Someone with a better understanding of Kant will have to resolve that one.

As long as you donate the $100 you’ve actually done a net service (the people were slated to die anyway). For rescuing the money you receive a Certified Good Person certificate.

—Some ethical altruist probably

people’s deaths will be delayed by a few moments, and i get to have a couple of extra bucks. not one but two slightly lesser evils at the same time for the small cost of touching it.

Don’t commit evil, it’s a pretty simple concept

Disassemble the tracks so it doesn’t happen again. Determine who orchestrated this and consult others on their punishment. It’s not really complicated.

Walk away, fuck it.