This is a modern variant of the famous "trolley problem" that raises profound questions about moral decision-making in automated systems.

From a **utilitarian perspective**, which focuses on minimizing overall harm, the car should swerve into the barrier. This would result in one death rather than five, creating the least total harm. Many would find this mathematically clear: saving five lives at the cost of one produces a better outcome.

However, there are compelling **counterarguments**:

1. **Special responsibility**: The car manufacturer and passenger entered into an implicit trust relationship. The passenger chose to use this vehicle with the reasonable expectation it wouldn't intentionally harm them. Deliberately killing the passenger could be seen as a betrayal of this trust.

2. **Action vs. inaction**: There's a moral distinction between actively killing someone (swerving to kill the passenger) versus failing to prevent deaths (not avoiding the pedestrians already in danger).

3. **Dangerous precedent**: Programming cars to sacrifice their occupants could undermine public trust in autonomous vehicles and paradoxically lead to more traffic deaths if people refuse to adopt safer self-driving technology.

4. **Rights-based view**: From a deontological (duty-based) perspective, intentionally killing an innocent person is wrong regardless of consequences. The passenger has done nothing wrong and has a right not to be killed.

My view is that while the utilitarian calculus seems clear, the special relationship between the vehicle and passenger, combined with the practical implications for autonomous vehicle adoption, creates a strong case for protecting the passenger. The ethical framework we choose for these systems will shape the future of transportation and public trust in AI systems.