Or, y'know, go with the original version of the trolley problem, where you start with the classic formulation (do you pull the lever?), then move to a new scenario;

"You're a doctor, working in a hospital that has been cut off from outside resources by a disaster. You have five patients, one in need of a liver, one a heart, one a pair of kidneys, one a set of lungs, and one a pancreas. You have no suitable organs available, and all five patients will die without transplants, but there is a healthy young janitor working in the hospital who, by a stroke of extreme luck, is a compatible donor for all five patients. You could kill the janitor, harvest their organs, and save five people. Should you do it?"

Fascinatingly, almost everyone opts to pull the lever in the first part, but refuses to kill the janitor in the second, even though they are, from a deeply utilitarian perspective, the same choice. Unravelling why we see them as different is where things get really interesting.

The trolley problem is easy all of these questions are easy

Level 1 - one person Level 2 - the kids Level 3 - best friend's mom Level 4 - cancer cure guy

None of it matters in the long run anyway, so might as well pick the choices that affect you directly. Toughest one in this is the best friend's mom definitely.