In the Switch scenario, it is morally right to pull the lever and sacrifice one person to save four, whereas in the Fat Man scenario it is morally wrong to push the fat man off the bridge, even though the consequences are the same, because pulling the lever is an indirect act, whereas pushing the fat man is a direct act of killing.
But why think that the direct/indirect distinction makes any moral difference (i.e., that directly killing a person is morally worse than indirectly killing a person) rather than merely a psychological difference (i.e., directly killing a person feels worse than indirectly killing a person) in these trolley cases?
Consider the horror franchise Saw. In these films, the Jigsaw Killer and his apprentices concoct diabolical "tests" or "games" designed to eventually lead to the death of those who are being "tested."
Would we consider Jigsaw any less of a moral deviant simply because he never directly kills his victims but rather concocts diabolical plans to indirectly kill them? If not, why would the direct/indirect distinction make any moral difference in the trolley scenarios?