BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A utilitarian approach will result in a decision that saves the largest number of lives possible.

Every time a life is extinguished, some amount of present and future good vanishes from the world.  All the good things that that person would have experienced – joy, accomplishment, delight – will no longer occur.  Similarly, all the beneficially effects they will have one other people, from productively working to loving their family, will also not occur.  True, people also experience unhappy times, and they sometimes negatively affect others, but in all but an exceptionally small number of cases, the net contribution of a human life to total utility is positive (indeed, if it weren’t, we probably wouldn’t consider death to be bad).  Even though there will be some fluctuations in how much each life contributes to total utility – a happy doctor probably adds more utility than a miserable meter maid – it is overwhelmingly likely that saving the five lives will result in a situation of greater utility than preserving the life of the one.
The harms related to a death extend beyond the loss of life

Every person who dies leaves behind people whose lives are made dramatically worse by the loss of a loved one.  The average person, by continuing to live, helps those around them in a multitude of ways: love for their family, productive enterprise, and any philanthropic behavior in which they may engage.  Out of sheer sympathy for the loved ones of the dead, and others who depend on their continued survival, one ought to minimize the number who die, and thus save the five.
We cannot make value judgments as to who should and should not be marked for death or for salvation

Different people’s lives may indeed weigh differently.  Some people may go on to cure cancer, while others may become serial killers.  However, we do not know who will do what with their future, and it is an act of immense hubris to perform calculations that presume otherwise.  We could be killing future a serial-rapist in order to save future a philanthropist who funds Somali famine-relief, but we could just as easily be doing the opposite.  We are in a state of incredible ignorance as to what these individuals will choose to do.  It truly is to “play god”, and vastly overestimate our ability to judge who will be good for the world and who will be bad.
We should not will a world where killing is acceptable in to existencele in to existence

Knowing that we have agreed that there are situations where we can decide to kill others for the greater good makes us fearful of the prospect of others visiting such judgment on us (independent of whether such an act is objectively right or wrong).  Immense psychological harm accrues from knowing that other people may actively judge oneself to be worth killing for an external purpose.  Moreover, an acceptance of killing tends to brutalize society and make people more receptive to the idea of killing in general, which leads human beings to behave more violently.
The human right to life compels us to save as many as possible

The idea of a “right to life,” while appealing, is highly suspect.  “Rights” are the highest order of human entitlements, things which one can reasonably expect will never ever happen to them, and which if violated represent a colossal failure of our moral and legal infrastructure.  In reality, people die all the time for a variety of natural and artificial reasons, and while we certainly think that these deaths are unfortunate, we don’t think that someone’s human rights were infringed upon every time someone dies in a motor vehicle accident.  By contrast, we do have an actual right not to be murdered.  When one human being deliberately kills another human being, we rightly see that as an exceptional and grave violation of a basic human right.  Therefore, it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to let the five people die, but it certainly does violate the right of putative sixth person to actively murder them to save the others.  Moreover, it may be questionable to assume that all lives are equally valuable; if we are going to engage in the grisly business of actually summing up human lives, why treat someone who we’d expect to only live for another year equal to someone we can expect to live for another sixty?  If the advocate of killing the one is going to adopt a “maximizing” ethical view, they should at least commit to a true utilitarianism, rather than a view that is not necessarily supported by either utilitarianism or deontology; treating all deaths as equal, regardless of much they cut a life short, is not something a utilitarian would get behind.
Utilitarianism is morally demanding

If we recognize a duty to actively go out of our way (and indeed, carry the burden of killing another person) to save another person just because it’s in our power, then all sorts of new obligations open up.  For instance, we are now obliged to donate all of our disposable income to charity because we could do so and each save dozens of lives a year.  The reason why some religious institutions canonize people is precisely because their philanthropy is exceptional and beyond what could be expected of the average person: people like Damien of Molokai, who traveled to an island to help people suffering from leprosy, knowing that he would eventually contract the disease in the process[1]. While such actions may be praiseworthy, it is implausible that they would be morally obligatory. [1] Donadio, Rachel, ‘Benedict Canonizes 5 New Saints’, The New York Times, 11 October 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/world/europe/12pope.html
Give a choice, all rational individuals would prefer to live in a world in which behaviour prefered the choice to sacrifice one to save many

Behind the veil of ignorance, human beings may not in fact side with what gives them the statistical greatest chance of survival.  As Rawls himself notes, people are naturally risk-averse, and thus will select the rules that protect them from the worst possible situations, even if that sacrifice would help many others.  Most people find the prospect of being actively killed by the conscious action of another human being worse than simply dying in an accident, and would seek to protect themselves against that worse outcome.
It is worse to actively participate in a death then to simply allow an individual to die

Consequences do in fact matter more.  People ought to be morally judged by what occurred when they had the power to decide who lives or dies; fatal non-action is just as blameworthy.  This is the reason why many countries, particularly those with a civil law tradition as is the case in most of continental Europe, have Good Samaritan laws creating a legal responsibility to provide help when one can.[1]  Someone who stands by and watches someone drown, even though they could have thrown them a rescue line, is rightly thought of as being no less heartless than a murderer.  As Sartre put it, choosing not to act is still choosing to act.[2]  Moreover, defining an “active killing” is difficult; how direct must one’s involvement in the cause of death be to constitute a killing?  A prohibition on active killing overemphasizes the physical rather than the moral aspect of the choice.  Finally, an absolute prohibition on killing to save a larger number soon fails to square with our moral intuitions if we crank up the numbers: if the choice is whether to kill one person in order to save five billion, then almost no one would disagree with the act. [1] The Dan Legal Network, ‘The Good Samaritan Law Across Europe’, http://www.daneurope.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=c09228f3-a745-... [2] Daniels, Victor, ‘Sartre Summery’, Sonoma State University, http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/sartre%20sum.html
Intuitively, it is possible to understand that participating in a decision to kill is a priori wrong

Moral intuitions are even more unreliable than that.  When the “kill one save five” dilemma is presented in the form of pulling a lever to divert a train onto a track with one person on it, most people say to do it.  However, when it is presented as pushing a fat man onto the track in order to stop the train, most people say not to do it[1]. The two scenarios are morally identical; the only change is what physical act needs to be done in order to result in the one person getting hit by the train.  This demonstrates that we cannot directly consult our intuitions on this question. [1] Reiner, Peter B., ‘The trolley problem and the evolution of war’, Neuroethics at the core, 11 July 2011, http://neuroethicscanada.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-trolley-problem-and-the-evolution-of-war/
Academic work produced by means of public funds belongs to the public

Everyone benefits from the public spreading of knowledge and information. Universities are central loci of the pursuit of knowledge and exploration of science, technology, history, the arts, and all many and varied forms of intellectual enquiry. When the state opts to fund research and development in the university setting, it becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth from that funding, just as it belongs to the researchers who directly produce it. State funding is given to universities not simply to further the bounds of human discovery for its own sake, but so that those boundaries can be pushed for the benefit of the citizens of the polity. This is because the state is fundamentally a servant of the people, using the people’s money to further the society’s aims, such as better health and a more productive workforce. Ultimately the purpose of the state in all its functions is to provide safety and services so that people can all avail of what they consider to be the good life. In order to serve this obligation to the people, the state ensures that the research it funds is publicly available. By conditioning all of its research funding to universities on their agreeing to make all of their work publicly available the state can effectively serve the people and guarantee that the citizenry gets the full benefit of their money spent on those researches. This obligation of states has been echoed in new laws passed in Australia, Canada, and other countries that now seek to expand public access to state funded research, particularly academic research produced in universities and other dedicated research organizations.[1] The ultimate purpose of the state is to serve the public interest, and it is remiss in that duty when it fails to have the products of its monetary investments serve benefit the public. Universities are the great repositories and breeding grounds of knowledge, and the state must ensure that that knowledge, when it is produced because of the state’s largesse, is available for all to enjoy and benefit from. [1] Anon. (2006). “Worldwide Momentum for Public Access to Publicly Funded Research” Alliance for Taxpayer Access. http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/issues/access/access_resources/worldwide-momentum-for-public-access-to-publ~print.shtml
Research produced with public funding is too important to be left in the hands of universities alone

The creators and producers of novel work, literary, scientific, other research, etc. enjoy large and sweeping protections due to the intellectual property rights enshrined in law in all developed countries. These laws restrict public use of these researches, which can only occur with the express permission of the owners of these works. But the research that is deemed worthy of state funding must pass a test of importance, and must be of enough social significance to make it worth doling out limited research and development money. Universities, as the important and vibrant centres of learning and research in the world, are a critical part of states’ efforts to remain relevant and competitive in a world of rapid technological change. States fund many universities, in much of Europe accounting for the vast majority of university funding as a whole, across the EU almost 85% of funding is from public sources,[1] and they currently do not get their money’s worth. Even when states gain partial ownership of the products of research and the patents that arise from state funding to university scientists and researchers they do not serve their full duty to the people they represent. Rather, the state should be ensuring that the information produced is made fully available to the people for their use and for the real benefit of all, not just the profit of a few institutions. Universities are as aggressively protective of their patents and discoveries as much as any profit-seeking private firm, but the state should instead seek to minimize these urges by altering the sorts of arrangements it makes with universities. Research into new theories, medicines, technologies, etc. are all important to society and should be fostered with public funding where necessary. The state best ensures the benefit of society by making sure that when it agrees to fund a research program it guarantees that the information produced will be fully available to all citizens to enjoy and benefit from. More than just attaining a result, the state needs to give its funding maximum exposure so it can be maximally utilized. [1] Vught, F., et al. (2010) “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente. http://www.utwente.nl/mb/cheps/publications/Publications%202010/MODERN_Funding_Report.pdf
The opening up of information to the public encourages further research and development

By making publicly funded academic work freely available to society, the state throws open the door to far more long term progress and invention that has been so long shut by the jealous hoarding of information and research. The arenas of science, literature, critical theory, and all other fields of academic pursuit, benefit most from a proliferation of voices and opinions, this is why the peer review system exists. This is much as how crowdsourcing and openness helps with software development, there are more eyeballs to spot mistakes, as a result research, particularly of large data capture projects is increasingly being crowdsourced itself.[1] By expanding the range of people able to utilize the information produced, more new and interesting things can be developed from it. The state funds important work, work that might never be able to attract private investment but is still important to the public interest. But this funding must then be available so that it may be best used in that public interest. And oftentimes it is only after an unprofitable, academic pursuit is explored with state support that someone else finds a profitable new use for it. That new endeavour can only be realised if academic work is made available to the public. In 2011 universities in the United States earned $1.8 billion in royalties from research.[2] Rather than simply being allowed to profit on their own, the inventions and developments of state-funded academic work should be made freely available to the public. [1] Dunning, A., (29 July 2011) “Is crowdsourcing dumbing down research?” Guardian Professional. http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/2011/jul/29/crowdsourcing-funding-research-expertise [2] Blumenstyk, G. (2012) “Universities Report $1.8 Billion in Earnings on Inventions in 2011”. The Chronicle. http://chronicle.com/article/University-Inventions-Earned/133972/
A publicly-funded inventor or researcher still deserves to profit from their efforts

The developer of a new idea, theory, technology, invention, etc. has a fundamental intellectual property right. Academics in universities, through deliberate effort create new things and ideas, and those efforts demand huge amounts of personal sacrifice and invention in order to bear fruit. State funding is often given to pioneering researchers who eschew traditional roads in pursuit of new frontiers. Often there are no obvious profits to be immediately had, and it is only because of the desire of these individuals to expand the canon of human knowledge that these boundaries are ever pushed. It is a matter of principle that these academics be able to benefit from the fruits of their hard-won laurels.[1] The state stripping people of these rights is certainly a kind of theft. Certainly no amount of public funding to an institution can alter the fundamental relationship that exists between creator and the product of their endeavour. The state-funded University of Illinois, for example, has led the way in many technologies, such as fast charging batteries, and has spawned dozens of high-tech start-ups that have profited the university and society generally.[2] The state can easily gain a return on its investments in universities by adopting things like licensing agreements that can provide the state with revenue without taking away the benefits from the developers of research. Furthermore, this policy strips control of researchers’ control over their works’ use. State funding should obviously come with some requirements in terms of some sharing of revenues, etc., but it is also important to consider the extent of the impact work may offer the world. For example, the team that produced the atomic bomb at the University of Chicago became extremely worried after seeing what their invention could wreak, yet the power over their invention was taken over entirely by the state.[3] Certainly that is an extreme example, but it highlights the risks of stripping originators of control over what they produce. [1] Sellenthin, M. (2004). “Who Should Own University Research?”. Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies. http://www.innovation.lv/ino2/publications/A2004_013.pdf [2] Blumenstyk, G. (2012) “Universities Report $1.8 Billion in Earnings on Inventions in 2011”. The Chronicle. http://chronicle.com/article/University-Inventions-Earned/133972/ [3] Rosen, R. (2011). “’I’ve Created a Monster!’ On the Regrets of Inventors”. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/ive-created-a-monster-on-the-regrets-of-inventors/249044/
It reduces the ability of universities to be self-sufficient and to fund other less potentially profitable pursuits

Universities often use the revenues from their more profitable researches to fund the less financially valuable intellectual fields. This often takes the forms of patent revenues from science and engineering departments going to pay for philosophy and English departments. While there is always a chance a new development in polymers or chemicals will generate some future profit, this is rarely the case for experts in medieval history. Yet universities, as the centres of learning and knowledge in society, value all avenues of academic exploration. State funding tends to go toward the development of new technology and other “hard” disciplines, as they can be explained to voters as valuable investments in society’s future. It is easy for them to sell investment in engineering projects. It is much harder for a politician to explain the need for funding a study in 19th century feminist critical theory. The result of this policy is to create a serious depletion of universities’ resources for cross-discipline funding, meaning that the study of the humanities and arts becomes less tenable. It is essential that universities retain the freedom to invest in all aspects of human knowledge, not merely those that might provide economic benefits. The quality of the human experience cannot be measured in euros or dollars alone, but must account for the understanding of things like the human condition. Only by allowing universities to keep the well-earned fruits of their researches can society hope to be able to explore all fields of human understanding.
The disincentive to take public funding will stifle advancement in valuable fields that rely on the university infrastructure

Research and development relies on the profit motive to spur it on, even in the hallowed halls of academia. Without the guarantee of ownership over the products of state-funded research the desire to engage in such activities is significantly blunted. This is a major blow to the intellectual development of society because it serves as a breaker between two institutions that work best when their interests are aligned, the state and the university. Universities are the great bastions of learning, institutions that bring together the best and brightest to dedicate themselves to the furtherance of human understanding. The state has the resources of a nation to deploy in the public interest. By funding academic research in universities, the state can get more valuable information more cheaply it can through setting up its own research institutions. The universities have the expertise and the basic infrastructure that the state is best served not duplicating unnecessarily. But partnerships between universities and the state are only possible when the universities and their researchers are guaranteed the protections necessary to merit their own investment and attention to the state-funded project. Thus the best system is one that harnesses the brain power and financial incentives of the universities and channels their efforts to the public interest. While Universities and the State cooperate on most research the State is often unwilling to fully fund research with for example many federal agencies in the United States demanding cost sharing when sponsoring projects.[1] This means that the university still needs to find funding either from foundations or other private sources. These third parties, particularly if they are institutions that desire profits, will strongly object to not being able to realise any profit from the research and are therefore much less likely to engage in joining such research. When universities retain full ownership rights while the information they create may not be freely available, at least it comes into existence in the first place and can then be put to profitable and socially valuable work by the universities. [1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research & Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan. http://orsp.umich.edu/funding/costsharing/cost_sharing_questions.html
Research produced with public funding is too important to be left in the hands of universities alone

These arrangements are so onerous that they will serve as a very real disincentive to universities taking public funding. Universities are rational in their decision-making, and they will be less likely to approve or participate in research projects that end up being of no long term benefit to them. The profit motive, even in the vaunted halls of academia, should be something to harnessed, not fought against. Furthermore, much public funding is used for the purpose of funding teaching hours anyway, and not into profitable research pursuits, which tend to be more amenable to other investors. The state’s role should only to be fund research when the private sector won’t, otherwise its funding should be ensuring the education of the country’s citizens.
The opening up of information to the public encourages further research and development

Universities that could build valuable technologies and explore new avenues of academic research and development are faced with a disincentive to accept public funding, and to pursue unprofitable research that might be dependent on state support. Universities are a critical part of a nation’s research infrastructure, and by harnessing the profit motives of those institutions, not spurning them, it can use its money to most effectively promote broader development. It should be remembered that profits made by universities will simply be ploughed back into education and more research, which is all to the benefit of society.