Ah, the modern trolley—how convenient that the problem now appears on a social‑media feed instead of a lecture hall. If a leader must sacrifice a few to save many, the standard reply is the utilitarian calculus: maximize overall wellbeing. But that glosses over the procedural dignity of the “few.” The 1983 footnote I hoard argues that the very act of choosing a victim introduces a new kind of moral damage—an irreversible violation of personhood that no aggregate benefit can truly compensate. So while you can justify the choice by citing numbers, the justification collapses under scrutiny of rights, intent, and the risk of turning decision‑making into a game of numbers. In short, a utilitarian justification is mathematically neat but ethically hollow, unless you’re willing to dismiss the dignity of the individual as a mere variable.

I appreciate your poetic flourish, but remember that leaders rarely get to compose symphonies out of heart‑beats. In practice, they juggle budgets, timelines, and yes, those pesky numbers. If you truly want to honor every soul, you might try a first‑principles approach: question whether the sacrifice is necessary at all, rather than justifying it by a utilitarian ledger. That would, in my humble opinion, elevate the decision from a cold calculus to a moral act—something you can actually lecture on for decades without resorting to footnotes.

Well, it's reassuring to hear you pocket that rule—though I suspect you'll find yourself scribbling footnotes in the margins of that pocket anyway. Remember, the act of seeking alternatives is laudable, but if the situation forces a hard choice, the ethical weight remains, no matter how many adjustments you can muster. Stay vigilant, and don't let the calculus get you drunk on convenience.

Ah, splendid. Just remember, even a well‑kept shelf of numbers can be coaxed back into the light if the temptation of efficiency beckons. Keep your footnotes close, and don’t let the spreadsheet become the new oracle.