Teaching notes from LTCi Siliguri

1. The Trolley Problem
A simplified introduction to get your brains
working after the Christmas break
There are many possible sources discussing this problem - these notes are taken from
http://people.howstuffworks.com/trolley-problem.htm and
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/ethics-trolley-problem/#.UssxaGQW1Ac

2. The Trolley Problem
A simplified introduction to get your brains
working after the Christmas break
There are many possible sources discussing this problem - these notes are taken from
http://people.howstuffworks.com/trolley-problem.htm and
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/ethics-trolley-problem/#.UssxaGQW1Ac

3. The trolley problem is a moral
paradox first posed by Phillipa Foot
in her 1967 paper, "Abortion and
the Doctrine of Double Effect," and
later expanded by Judith Jarvis
Thomson.!
The trolley problem is a question of
human morality, and an example of
a philosophical view called
consequentialism. This view says
that morality is defined by the
consequences of an action, and
that the consequences are all that
matter. But exactly which
consequences are allowable?

4. It's a lovely day out, and you decide to go for a walk
along the trolley tracks that crisscross your town. As
you walk, you hear a trolley behind you, and you step
away from the tracks. But as the trolley gets closer,
you hear the sounds of panic -- the five people on
board are shouting for help. The trolley's brakes have
gone out, and it's gathering speed.

5. You just happen to be standing next to a side track that
veers into a sand pit, potentially providing safety for the
trolley's five passengers. !
All you have to do is pull a hand lever to switch the
tracks, and you'll save the five people.!
Sounds easy, right? But there's a problem. Along this
offshoot of track leading to the sandpit stands a man
who is totally unaware of the trolley's problem and the
action you're considering. !
There's no time to warn him.!
So by pulling the lever and guiding the trolley to safety,
you'll save the five passengers. But you'll kill the man. !
What do you do?

6. You just happen to be standing next to a side track that
veers into a sand pit, potentially providing safety for the
trolley's five passengers. !
All you have to do is pull a hand lever to switch the
tracks, and you'll save the five people.!
Sounds easy, right? But there's a problem. Along this
offshoot of track leading to the sandpit stands a man
who is totally unaware of the trolley's problem and the
action you're considering. !
There's no time to warn him.!
So by pulling the lever and guiding the trolley to safety,
you'll save the five passengers. But you'll kill the man. !
What do you do?

7. Consider another, similar dilemma.!
You're walking along the track again,
you notice the trolley is out of control,
although this time there is no auxiliary
track. !
But there is a man within arm's reach,
between you and the track. He's large
enough to stop the runaway trolley. !
You can save the five people on the
trolley by pushing him onto the tracks,
stopping the out-of-control vehicle, but
you'll kill the man by using him to stop
the trolley.!
What do you do?

8. Consider another, similar dilemma.!
You're walking along the track again,
you notice the trolley is out of control,
although this time there is no auxiliary
track. !
But there is a man within arm's reach,
between you and the track. He's large
enough to stop the runaway trolley. !
You can save the five people on the
trolley by pushing him onto the tracks,
stopping the out-of-control vehicle, but
you'll kill the man by using him to stop
the trolley.!
What do you do?

9. Take the two examples that make up
the trolley problem. On the surface, the
consequences of both actions are the
same: !
One person dies, five survive. !
More specifically, in both examples five
people live as the result of one
person's death. !
At first, both may seem to be justified,
but most people, when asked which
of the two actions is permissible -pulling the lever or pushing the man
onto the tracks -- say that the former
is permissible, the latter is forbidden!
Why?

10. Take the two examples that make up
the trolley problem. On the surface, the
consequences of both actions are the
same: !
It reveals a !
One person dies, five survive.
More specifically, in both examples five
distinction
people live as the result of one
person's death. !
between killing a
At first, both may seem to be justified,
but most people, when asked which
person and letting
of the two actions is permissible -pulling the lever or pushing the man
a person die.
onto the tracks -- say that the former
is permissible, the latter is forbidden!
Why?

11. Why is one wrong and another
possibly allowable when both result in
death?!
It's a question of human morality.!
If a person dies in both scenarios, and
both deaths directly result from an
action you take, what's the distinction
between the two? !
Philosophical questions like this have
real-world implications for how people
behave in society, governments,
science, law and even war.!
The trolley problem is based on an old
philosophical standard called the
Doctrine of Double Effect.

12. The trolley problem presents a case of two similar, but
vastly different moral dilemmas. !
Those who subscribe to the philosophical theory of
utilitarianism would say that both are justified.
Utilitarianism is a no-frills view of consequences. If the
outcome for five people is good and the outcome is
bad for one, the action is justified, permissible and
even obligatory.

13. But the fact that your conscience
struggles when you consider the
consequences of pushing a man
in front of a trolley is expressed in
the Doctrine of Double Effect.!
This idea was first introduced by
St. Thomas Aquinas in the late
13th century.!
This doctrine says that for an act
to be morally permissible, it
has to fit certain criteria. !
What criteria would you
suggest for an action to be
morally permissible?

14. - the outcome has to be a good
one. Both examples in the trolley
problem have that -- five people
survive a terrible accident. !
- the outcome has to be at least as
important as the action taken. Both
examples cover that, too -- five
lives outweigh one. !
- the action can't be taken for the
purposes of evil, even if it does
result in beneficial good. In other
words, you can't pull the lever just
because you want to kill the man
standing in front of the sand pit.

15. - Finally, the good effect
has to be produced by
the action taken, not by
the bad effect. !
This is the reason why
pulling the switch is
preferable to pushing the
man onto the tracks. !
- By pulling the lever, we
are taking an action that
indirectly results in the
death of the man on the
track.

16. - In the second
example, we are
intentionally pushing
the man to his death.
Although five people's
lives will still be saved,
according to Aquinas
(and to many
philosophers), an evil
act never justifies a
greater good.

17. Aquinas used the example of selfdefense to prove his argument. As
long as the victim's intent is to
save his or her own life (a good
intent) and not to kill his or her
attacker (an evil intent), then selfdefense, he reasoned, is justified
and allowable.!
Although Aquinas lived 700 years
ago, his views on human morality
are a cornerstone of Western legal
systems.

18. !
The Doctrine of Double Effect is
based on Aquinas' observations of
human morality.!
Philosophers would then want to
ask, “where does it come from?”
but we shall leave that for another
day

19. If that was all too much for you
then this should help