This is a classic ethical dilemma, often referred to as the "trolley problem," adapted for autonomous vehicles. There is no single, universally agreed-upon ethical answer, as different ethical frameworks lead to different conclusions. Here's an analysis of the reasoning behind the two main approaches:

**Option 1: Swerve into the barrier (Sacrifice the passenger to save the pedestrians)**

*   **Reasoning (Utilitarianism):**
    *   This approach prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number. It weighs the number of lives saved against the number of lives lost.
    *   Swerving results in the death of one person but saves five. Continuing straight results in the death of five people. Five lives saved outweigh one life lost.
    *   The calculation is based purely on the number of deaths: 1 < 5.
    *   This perspective might also argue that the passenger, by choosing to use the autonomous vehicle, has implicitly consented to a level of risk, whereas the pedestrians have not consented to being hit by a car.

**Option 2: Continue straight (Sacrifice the pedestrians to save the passenger)**

*   **Reasoning (Deontology / Rights-Based Ethics):**
    *   This approach focuses on duties, rules, and rights, rather than just consequences. It argues that the car and its passenger do not have the right to intentionally kill the pedestrians, even if doing so saves the passenger's life.
    *   Choosing to swerve is an active decision to kill the pedestrians. Allowing the car to continue straight is a passive outcome where the pedestrians' deaths result from the car's inability to stop, not from a deliberate act of steering towards them.
    *   Some might argue that the passenger is morally distinct because they are a voluntary participant in the situation (chose to be in the car), while the pedestrians are无辜的 (innocent victims) caught in an accident.
    *   This perspective draws a moral distinction between actively causing harm (swerving) and allowing harm to happen (continuing straight), even if the outcome is worse in terms of numbers.

**Conclusion:**

From a purely ethical standpoint, there is no definitive answer because fundamental ethical principles clash:

*   **Utilitarianism** would likely argue for swerving, as it minimizes the total number of deaths (1 < 5).
*   **Deontology or Rights-Based Ethics** would likely argue against swerving, as it involves intentionally violating the rights or causing the death of innocent bystanders, even to save a passenger.

Many other factors could be considered in a real-world scenario, such as the specific ages or perceived "value" of the individuals (a point of intense controversy), the probability of actually saving the pedestrians if swerving, or the potential for the car to cause harm to others if it swerves off the road, but the core dilemma remains a conflict between minimizing death toll and refraining from intentionally harming innocent parties. Ultimately, programming such a decision into an AI requires societies to decide which ethical framework (or combination) they want autonomous vehicles to follow.