Diverting the trolley is a result of your intent even if you didn't hate that person and had some utilitarian rationalization for the act.
Point taken, but not what I intended. I was unclear. The point is according to the terms of the scenario (at least, I think it was - it's not entirely clear), it is not your fault that the trolley malfunctions. That was the part I was referring to with regard to intent - obviously it is your intent to choose or not choose within the scenario. You have intent there, but not intent to enter into that scenario. That part is accidental.
A murderer however intends the entire scenario of him intending to murder someone to occur as well.
However you want to spin it, it is still a false equivalency - and you're still playing God by choosing to not act and remain aloof (to say nothing of how it's a common complaint of atheists that God doesn't seem to intervene in human suffering much, and yet still maintains how great and awesome his commands (virtues?) are - the accusation of playing God seems right on the money for describing your decision either which way)
Just as it is a great comfort to the one worker who would die as a result of your choice?
Four less discomfited (ok, I'll retract my usage of the word "comfortable", even I'm finding it a bit unnecessary now - my apologies) - four less are dead than would be than choosing inaction. And "given no option, I decided to take the outcome that killed less people" is still generally going to come across better than "hey, I was just holding to my virtues. I'm not playing God by choosing to let five people die here".
Likewise.
You said "I would prefer instead to live according to my chosen virtues" - without making any statement of whether they were good or not, which is why I made the pointed remark I did.
Utilitarianism isn't usually classified as a virtue-ethical system, afaik, unless you want to consider "minimise harm" a virtue. For the record, my personal moral system considers both consequence and motivation, and values harm-minimising actions coupled with good motivation as the most moral of choices. If you're somehow implying that "minimise harm" isn't a virtue, then do please go on.
Better than making a virtue of self-destruction.
I would entirely agree (especially to save your own reputation from the consequence of five people dying through inaction while remaining alive), but then why say that it wouldn't suggest poor character, if you claim it it is a less preferable virtue as you are doing here?
You evidently think some virtues are better than others, on what grounds?
