Conquestialists aren't consequentialist enough?

[OnlyMyOpinion]

Why do philosophers consider the standard lever-based trolley dilemma from Philippa Foot
and variations like the organ and fat man to be a matter of categorical vs. consequentialist thinking?

If I push a fat man off a bridge that's a freaking homicide, ain't it? That's a different consequence from pulling a lever to divert a trolley from a mass of bodies. That's why I don't push the fat man. It's a different consequence. Even if it wasn't illegal to be pushing perfectly innocent people off a bridge, that's a freaking different consequence, isn't it? Common sense, anybody?

I don't understand philosophers. Do they have a mental problem if they can't see these scenarios as having radically different outcomes? Utilitarians also have a mental problem as I see it if they evaluate outcomes strictly in terms of criteria as simple as Hedonic calculus.

Updates

+1 y

How is this shit taught as universities like Harvard and Stanford as though they're profound questions? Don't push people off bridges! Don't take organs from innocent patients. Duh! Does "smart" mean "completely divorced from practicality"? These are bad consequences that would mess up societies if they were rampant. Duh!

Updates

+1 y

Oops, my bad. I spelled "Consequentialist" wrong in the title. I'm on a drunk rampage against philosophers. My side is a bit dumber but stronger in practicality and common sense. I hate these types of philosophers who can't see outcomes as being different. Kantian kunts, you know?

[OfDeath]

The whole point is that the perceived morality of the action depends on the consequences. For example an absolutist view of thou shalt not kill means you couldn't kill a proven serial killer to use their organs to save 2 innocent people. That raises the philosophical question of can inaction also amount to killing? I think not but it can result in missed opportunity.
I find the whole argument an extremely grey area. For example with the trolley question, I wouldn't divert it to the one person if it was someone I loved but otherwise would. So I have admittedly flawed mental philosophy and that's human nature.

[OnlyMyOpinion]

I don't see why we have to divert it away from a consequence. The consequence of your loved one dying is worse than a stranger. The consequence of me pushing a perfectly innocent person off a bridge is different from pulling a lever.