in ethics—the Trolley Problem—than Judith Jarvis Thomson. Though the problem is originally due to Philippa Foot, Thomson showed how Foot’s simple solution. These slides are for an Introduction to Philosophy course at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada. They talk about. By Judith Jarvis Thomson, Published on 01/01/ Recommended Citation. Judith Jarvis Thomson, The Trolley Problem, 94 Yale L.J. (). Available at.

Author: Gojind Doutaxe
Country: Georgia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 26 December 2017
Pages: 443
PDF File Size: 12.94 Mb
ePub File Size: 18.98 Mb
ISBN: 235-1-22062-635-3
Downloads: 77771
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vikasa

A survey published in a paper by David Bourget and David Chalmers shows that As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks.

“The Trolley Problem” by Judith Jarvis Thomson

Beginning inthe trolley problem and its variants have been used extensively in empirical research on moral psychology. Tesla has already gone beyond demonstrating its self-driving car to having such a vehicle travel across the United States.

They also question the premise of the scenario. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Available editions United States.

Judith Jarvis Thomson, Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem – PhilPapers

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. It may well be considered noble to sacrifice your own life to protect others, but morally or legally allowing murder of one innocent person to save five people may be insufficient justification. The real culprit being unknown, the jagvis sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only fhomson framing some innocent person and having him executed.


Find it on Scholar. However, there is a single person lying on the side track.

This seems trivial since the trolley will never travel down it. Do you support the morality of the doctor to kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives?

Show your love with a gift to The Conversation to support our journalism. Mere Sophistry With Words? Follow Topics Scientists at work. Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The claim that it is wrong to use the death of one to save five runs into a problem with variants like this:. In the next ward is another individual recovering from a broken leg.

Other approaches make use of virtual reality to assess human behavior in experimental settings. Not everyone answers the dilemmas in the same way, and even when people agree, they may vary in their justification of the action they defend.

Unger therefore argues that different responses to these sorts of problems are based more on psychology than ethics — in this new case, he says, the only important difference is that the man in the yard does not seem particularly “involved”.

Again, the consequences are the same as the first dilemma, but most people would utterly reject the notion of killing the healthy patient. Real world dilemmas The trolley dilemma and its variations demonstrate that most people approve of some actions that cause harm, yet other actions with the same outcome are not considered permissible. They noted that the first version activates our logical, rational mind and thus if we decided to pull the lever it was because we intended to save a larger number of lives.


Trolley problem

But in the footbridge scenario, pushing the fat man over the side is in intentional act of killing. On these grounds, they advocate for the dual-process account of moral decision-making.

Lombardi – – New Scholasticism 54 2: Retrieved 20 April From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Actions, intentions and consequences If all the dilemmas above have the same consequence, yet most people would only be willing to throw the lever, but not push the fat man or kill the healthy patient, does that mean our moral intuitions are not always reliable, logical or consistent?

You can divert its path by colliding another trolley into it, but if you do, both will be derailed and go down a hill, and into a yard where a man is sleeping in a hammock. Sign in Create an account. Another distinction is that the first case is similar to a pilot in an airplane that has lost power and is about to crash into a heavily populated area.