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: Zuramar Telmaran
Country: Senegal
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 21 June 2006
Pages: 481
PDF File Size: 9.64 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.93 Mb
ISBN: 803-5-84702-471-4
Downloads: 41837
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Meztishura

Find it on Scholar. Two each require one lung, another two each require a kidney and the fifth needs a heart. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to uarvis — your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five.

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. A utilitarian view asserts that it is obligatory to steer to the track with one man on it. Moral Dilemmas and Moral Rules. They also question the premise of the scenario. Crash Algorithms for Autonomous Cars: In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients.

Ezio Di Nucci – – Philosophical Psychology 26 5: However, there is a single person lying on the side track. Killing and Letting Die. The Century Co, Ina Facebook page under the name “Trolley Problem Memes” was recognised for its popularity on Facebook.


But in the judth scenario, pushing the fat man over the side is in intentional act of killing. Jqrvis, would you push the man on to the tracks, sacrificing him in order to stop the tram and thereby saving five others? Problems analogous to the trolley problem arise in the design of autonomous carsin situations where the car’s software is forced during a potential crash scenario to choose between multiple courses of action sometimes including options which include the death of the car’s occupantsall of which may cause harm.

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.

Trolley problem – Wikipedia

From the Publisher via CrossRef no proxy jstor. Imagine you are standing on a footbridge above the tram tracks. 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.

The outcome of this scenario is identical to the one with the lever diverting the trolley onto another track: Killing John to Save Mary: 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.

Again, the consequences are the same as the first dilemma, but most people would jarviz reject the notion of killing the healthy patient.


Trolley problem

In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples the exchange is supposed to be one man’s life for the lives of five.

Should I kill spiders in my home?

Philosophy Morality Ethics moral dilemma. Boyle Jr – – New Scholasticism 51 4: 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. Selim Berker – – Philosophical Issues 23 1: As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people.

Show your love with a gift to The Conversation to support our journalism. Helen Frowe – – In J. The trolley dilemma has since proven itself to be a remarkably flexible tool for probing our moral intuitions, and jhdith been adapted to apply to various other scenarios, such as war, torture, drones, abortion and euthanasia.

Peter; Bartels, Daniel M.

Rini – – Synthese 2: Ambiguities in ‘Killing’ and ‘Letting Die’. Marcus Arvan – – Neuroethics 6 2: If all the dilemmas above have problsm 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?

Killing, Letting Die, Intention and Foresight.