At which point, cross-examination would take place, and your lawyer would be able to expose how your heroic action saved 5 human beings, or nearly half the jury. If you hadn't done anything, your inaction would have cost five precious human lives.

Also, if someone ordered you to pull the switch (prevailing that that person had any kind of authority -- any form of authority, parent or legal guardian, police officer, doctor, military, etc), then that person would be to blame (see why dictators, high-ranking military and others are guilty of mass-murder, even though they didn't fire a gun once in their lifetime); not you specifically.

As I said before, this is a hypothetical situation and it doesn't provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Most humans will take their decision based on their emotions, and there is no way to remove it from the equation. However this allegory isn't about action versus inaction. What failed to be specified was that you *have* to take action.

A slightly different version of this allegory is the one that measures action vs inaction.

A married couple (man and woman) are in danger of death (how isn't important). Both are pleading you to take action which will ensure the other one lives, as they are both equally ready to put their life down for the sake of the other person. If you act, you have to chose who lives. If you do not act, the person who dies and the one who lives will be absolutely random.

Regardless of the outcome (you acting and selecting the one who dies, or not doing anything and leaving it to be random), the person who survives will blame you. What do you do?