From the report (http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/DG/bericht-der-ethik-kommission.html?nn=12830 http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/DG/

From the report (http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/DG/bericht-der-ethik-kommission.html?nn=12830 http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/DG/bericht-de...), it seems like both positions (i.e. doing nothing and killing five people, but also deviating to kill one person) would be defensible. One guideline states that an attempt at reduction in the total amount of human damage is defensible (Rule 9, pg. 11), which supports killing 5 people. Another (Rule 8, pg. 11) states that genuine ethical dilemmas, such as life-vs-life situations, should be judged later on a case-by-case basis by a court because there are no concrete moral guidelines by which to ex-ante program a computer by, referencing that a human driver could pick either choice in such a dilemma and perhaps act illegally but not necessarily culpably. I take this to mean that deviating to kill one person could also be reasonably defended.