The Trolley Problem Flashcards
What is the Trolley Problem?
A moral dilemma where one must decide whether to turn a runaway trolley to kill one person instead of five.
What is the main ethical question of the Trolley Problem?
Is it morally permissible to kill one person to save five?
What is the “Bystander at the Switch” case?
A variation where a bystander can flip a switch to divert the trolley onto a track where it will kill one person instead of five.
What is the difference between the Trolley Driver and Bystander at the Switch?
The trolley driver is directly controlling the vehicle and RESPONSIBLE for actions done.
While the bystander simply has the option to get involve INDIRECTLY. They are a “private person” (UNofficially responsible) who just happens to be there.
What is the Surgeon case in the Trolley Problem?
A surgeon must decide whether to kill one healthy person to harvest their organs and save five others.
What ethical principle often contrasts killing versus letting die in the Trolley Problem?
Killing one person is considered worse than letting five die.
What does Thomson suggest about using a person “as a means”?
It is morally wrong to use a person solely as a means to an end, such as killing one to save others without their consent.
What role does “rights” play in the Trolley Problem according to Thomson?
The concept of rights is central; it’s impermissible to infringe on someone’s rights, EVEN if doing so saves more lives.
What is the “Fat Man” variation of the Trolley Problem?
one could STOP a trolley by pushing a fat man off a bridge, killing him to save five others.
Why and how is the Fat Man case generally seen as morally wrong?
Because it involves directly infringing on the man’s rights by using his body as a means to stop the trolley.
What is the “Loop” variant in the Trolley Problem?
the trolley loops back and will kill the five unless diverted to kill one person whose body can stop the trolley
How does the “Transplant” case differ from the Trolley Problem?
the surgeon actively kills one to save five
which is seen as using someone as a means to an end
unlike in the trolley case where harm might be more indirect.
Utilitarianism
A philosophy that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing harm.
(Relevance: A utilitarian might say it’s better to save five lives, even if one person dies.)
Deontology
A philosophy that focuses on following moral rules and respecting individual rights.
(Relevance: A deontologist might argue that killing one person is never justified, even to save five.)
JJT does not think that Kant’s principle to “never use humanity merely as a means” can help answer the main question of her essay. Explain what Kant means by this principle, and why JJT thinks it doesn’t help.
Kant’s POV: always impermissible to infringe on ppl’s rights no matter what
JJT’s POV: the issue is okay in some situations like the Transplant case
* BUT says OTHERWISE for the trolley b/c it isn’t clear if being used is right or wrong because There is no universal meaning of using someone as a means.
Right Trump Utilities
Basic rights OVER the overall benefits (utilities) of actions.
Why: It is NOT permissible to infringe on one’s rights.
Ex: Thomson argues you cannot justify killing the one person, because their right to life is MORE important than just saving more lives.
Distributive Exemption
Fairly disturbing harm will occur to decrease harm.
Ex: Switching the track to where the trolley only hits one instead of five.
How might “right trump utilities” and “distributive exemption” shed light (explain) on the central question of “is it morally permissible to kill one to save five?
- Right Trump Utilities: impermissible to infringe on one’s rights even if doing so saves more lives as (living is a basic human right and it should be put FIRST before saving five which would be the benefit of that action).
- Distributive Exemption: switching the track of the trolley to hit one instead of five will minimize the overall harm as less will be hurt.
