Here is your earlier post (#833):
Knowingly (deliberately, voluntarily) throwing a switch that directly kills innocents by any technology - bullet aimed at a head, electricity connected to a body, or trolley directed precisely at a man on the track - involves an evil object.
Using that definition, it doesn’t matter where on the track the baby sits or the fact that the mother will die if you don’t throw it. You have declared that “knowingly…throwing a switch that directly kills innocents…involves an evil object.”
Whatever else may be true of the situation, you cannot throw the switch because if you do you meet your own criteria of committing an act with an evil object.
No, I am using your own definition of the action, and pointing out the consequences of such a definition.
Actually, yes. I don’t make any moral distinction between the two actions, but they are in fact different actions in that the death in one case is indirect and in the other it is direct.
No, I have always recognized that throwing the switch in fact both directs the trolley away from the four and simultaneously at the one. Those are both consequences of the act. The point is that “away from the four” is the proximate end - the immediate objective - of throwing the switch. Directing it “at the one” is no objective at all; it is an entirely unwanted effect. Now the fact that it is undesired alone does not justify the action; it would still be immoral if the act itself was intrinsically wrong. If the death resulting from the act was direct then it would be wrong, but if the death is indirect then the act may be justifiable. This is the distinction I make in the case of the electrocution: it is the difference between direct and indirect.