[Groxx]

By running under the paradigm that they assume they are flawed? That's the core claim in there.

>..if we respect our fellows' human rights

This is a problematic clause. Whose rights do you disrespect: the one you pushed, or the 5 you could have saved?

[yters]

Deontological ethics are hierarchical. Greater goods take precedence over lesser goods. But, killing someone for a greater good doesn't making killing good, i.e. it isn't justified.

[Groxx]

/me reads wikipedia article

Huh. By the sound of it, they take the stance that violence against non-violence is a flat-out unjustifiable act, regardless of the consequences.

But on those grounds, can't you say the trolley is a violent enemy that must be stopped, so violent acts are justifiable? You certainly can't expect to cause violence only to the enemy, especially if you consider psychological violence to be violence (and why wouldn't it be? Torture is torture.). By causing violence only to the enemy, you may be causing psychological violence to any who happen to in the blast radius / capable of witnessing your violence, thus you are causing violence to them.

So it's a moral goal for a flawless world with no-one else in it. Of course, if the whole world were like this, then pushing someone in front of the trolley would be justifiable, because they would have not been justified in not throwing themselves in front of such a violent enemy, if they were aware and able to do so.

I don't buy it. Ideals are worthless if they can only exist in an impossible world.