Final answer:
The ethical approach of stopping at a red light despite no immediate consequence is likely rooted in deontological ethics or rule utilitarianism, with the latter permitting exceptions for greater overall utility, such as during emergencies. The trolley problem illustrates the conflict between these approaches, as utilitarianism would prioritize greater good outcomes while deontology would emphasize rule adherence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The ethical approach that follows the line of thought that 'We ought to stop at a red light, even if no cars are coming and I could get to my destination that much sooner', is likely rooted either in deontological ethics, which focuses on following rules and duties, or in rule utilitarianism (RU), which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number by adhering to rules that, in general, maximize utility.
In a situation where there is a pregnant woman in immediate need of medical assistance, rule utilitarianism might support breaking a traffic law by driving through a red light if doing so would result in a greater overall utility, such as safely delivering the woman to the hospital and possibly saving two lives.
When examining the trolley problem, individuals must make decisions that weigh the moral implications of their potential actions, which often align with utilitarian principles when opting to save the greater number of individuals. Contrastingly, a deontological perspective might prioritize the adherence to moral rules, such as not taking a direct action that results in harm.