If any one of the five escape the track and in doing so removes the imminent threat to himself then that one now has the same moral standing as the bystander.
The principle which prohibits the original bystander from acting also prohibits the one who escapes the track.
CCC#1753 … the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.
… … … … … … …
If any one of the five while facing the imminent lethal threat can switch the track then he/she may throw the switch as an act of self-protection.
The moral principle allowing the act is:
CCC#2264 … since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
A conflicting moral instruction that must be considered is:
CCC#2258 … no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.
Unlike the mother in a tubal pregnancy, the innocent one’s body-person on the track is not inexorably bound in the physical evil that threatens one’s life. The innocent one is like an
involuntary human shield to the physical threat as is an
involuntary human shield to an aggressor, e.g. terrorist suicide-bomber. In the former, the killing act is one of self-protection. In the latter, the killing act is one of self-defense.
In both cases, neither killer claims a
right to destroy a life. Rather, both killers claim an
obligation to protect or defend life.
Does the principle of the double effect apply to both cases? I think so and when applied, permits both killing acts.
