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: Malagor Mujinn
Country: Zambia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 1 February 2018
Pages: 290
PDF File Size: 6.58 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.64 Mb
ISBN: 200-8-57495-121-7
Downloads: 86471
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kell

This solution is essentially an application of the doctrine of double effectwhich says that you may take action which has bad side effects, but deliberately intending harm even for good causes is wrong.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from ” https: Are our emotions troley this instance leading us to the correct action? Evolution and Human Behavior.

Belliotti – – Critica 14 Views Read Edit View history. Thompson and other philosophers thomosn given us other variations on the trolley dilemma that are also scarily entertaining. Should I kill spiders in my home? Since then, numerous other studies have employed trolley problems to study moral judgment, investigating topics like the role and influence of stress, [16] emotional state, [17] impression management, [18] levels of anonymity, [19] different types of brain damage, [20] physiological arousal, [21] different neurotransmitters, [22] and genetic factors [23] on responses to trolley dilemmas.

However, there is a single person lying on the side track. Retrieved 8 Jueith Should we avoid sacrificing one, even if it is to save five? Unger therefore argues that different responses to these sorts of problems are based more on psychology than ethics — in this new thkmson, he says, the only important difference is that the man in the yard does not seem particularly “involved”.


Trolley problem

However, in this variant the secondary track later rejoins the main track, so diverting the trolley still leaves it on a track which leads to the five people. If we consider that everyone has equal rights, then we would be doing something wrong in sacrificing one even if our intention was to save five.

Basil Blackwell, originally appeared in the Oxford ReviewNumber 5, According to classical utilitarianism, such a decision would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option the other option being no action tomson all. The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks.

You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be htomson down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Robinson of Current Affairs go even further and assert that the thought experiment is not only useless but downright detrimental to human psychology.

Request removal from index.

“The Trolley Problem” by Judith Jarvis Thomson

Inthe government of Germany constituted an ethical commission that addressed the implications of autonomous driving. If this is the case, then deciding to do nothing would be considered an immoral act if one values five lives prolem than one.

Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area.

The claim that it is wrong to use the death of one to save five runs into a problem with variants like this:. Thought experiments in ethics introductions. Ezio Di Nucci – – Philosophical Psychology 26 5: If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track and the five people on the main track will be saved.


The authors are opining that to make cold calculations about hypothetical situations in which every alternative will result in one or more gruesome deaths is to encourage a type of thinking that is devoid of human empathy and assumes a mandate to decide who lives or dies.

The trolley dilemma: would you kill one person to save five?

The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. But, the person on the secondary track is a fat person who, when he is killed by the trolley, will stop it from continuing on to the five people.

James Rachels – – In Lawrence C. A survey published in a paper by David Bourget and David Chalmers shows that Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Again, the consequences are the same as the first dilemma, but most people would utterly reject the notion of killing the healthy patient. So, would you problek the healthy patient and harvest their organs to save five others?

Even if the pilot knows for sure that innocent people will die if he redirects the plane to a jucith populated area—people who are “uninvolved”—he will actively turn the plane without hesitation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. However, in the second case, harming the one is an integral part of the plan to save the five.