I know it's not a maths problem, that's the entire point. Everyone always thinks they're bringing so much wisdom in when they ask, "what about y?!" when the topic was x.

It can help illucidate an individual's moral perspective, but it does not help anyone understand the value of human life who doesn't already value human life.

Like when people say, "what if it was five murderers?!" Uhh, OK? Do I know they're murderers? If not, I'd still think to spare them, obviously. Is the one person an even worse type of person than five murderers? I'll merc him anyways.

The value of human life goes both ways, for many reasons. While the trolley problem is nice for splitting hairs on where someone sits, it doesn't teach people how to care.

In my response, I personally believe someone who is willing to kill five strangers over one is likely to be the person with worse ethics. Changing the equation will of course potentially change which choice I think is the more ethical one. While I wouldn't agree with someone who spared a loved one over five equivalent strangers, I would emotionally understand it.