Because the OP specifies that all actors who act so foresee that evil effect as an outcome.
Does the innocent person die if no one acts? No. Therefore, only the act itself (in se) causes the death of the innocent. If the innocent death is only caused by the act then the death is most certainly a proximate end to the act.
I believe @Rau did not, and I most certainly do not, assert an evil intention. The bystander’s intention has throughout this thread been given as good. I do assert that the act is voluntary, that is deliberate and premeditated.
And, I believe we have been applying the principles of the double effect throughout the thread. Seeing the act as intrinsically evil, @Rau and I could not get past the first principle: the act must (in the concrete) be good.
Please rewrite the thought contained in the above sentence. It is a bit confusing to me in two areas.
First, that an act is in se causal would be necessary but not sufficient to indicate a direct relationship to the effect. How do you mean “in se (indirect) cause …”?
Second, the passive voice “getting run over” and relegating the trolley to a preposition “by a trolley” seems rather contrived so as to confuse with unnecessary ambiguity the clear and concise statement of direct cause as given in the OP’s case: If you pull the lever, then that one person will surely die.