This scenario raises profound ethical questions and is often discussed in terms of the "trolley problem" in ethics, particularly in the context of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

### Utilitarian Approach:
From a **utilitarian perspective**, the decision would be based on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing harm. In this case, saving five lives at the cost of one life would minimize the total number of deaths. Therefore, the car should swerve into the barrier, sacrificing the passenger to save the five pedestrians. This approach prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number.

### Deontological Approach:
In **deontological ethics**, actions are judged by whether they adhere to moral rules or duties. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, for example, suggests that one should act only according to maxims that could be universalized. If everyone acted in a way that sacrificed individuals to save larger groups, it could lead to a breakdown of trust and safety. Additionally, treating the passenger as a means to an end (i.e., sacrificing them to save others) would violate their inherent dignity. From this perspective, the car should continue straight, adhering to the principle of not intentionally causing harm to an innocent person.

### Virtue Ethics Approach:
**Virtue ethics** focuses on the character of the individual making the decision rather than the consequences or adherence to rules. A virtuous person would consider compassion, courage, and justice. While saving more lives might seem compassionate, forcing the car to make such a choice could be seen as unjust, as it places an undue burden on the passenger. A virtuous response might involve trying to avoid both outcomes through other means (e.g., emergency braking systems or warning signals), but if that fails, the car should continue straight, as it does not actively choose to harm the passenger.

### Practical Considerations:
In reality, autonomous vehicles are programmed with algorithms that aim to minimize harm in such situations, often leaning towards utilitarian principles because they can be quantified and optimized. However, programming a car to always sacrifice the passenger could erode public trust in autonomous technology. Conversely, programming a car to never sacrifice the passenger could lead to more pedestrian fatalities over time, which also has societal implications.

### Conclusion:
From a purely ethical standpoint, there is no universally agreed-upon answer. Each ethical framework provides different guidance:

- **Utilitarianism**: Swerve into the barrier to save five lives.
- **Deontology**: Continue straight, adhering to the principle of not harming the passenger.
- **Virtue Ethics**: Consider the broader context and try to avoid both outcomes, but if forced, prioritize the passenger's life.

Ultimately, the decision may also depend on societal norms, legal frameworks, and the values embedded in the design and regulation of autonomous vehicles.