Keyboard Shortcuts?f

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Thomson’s Other Method of Trolley Cases

Could scientific discoveries undermine, or support, ethical principles?

so far

1. Yes, if we use Foot’s method

2. Yes, if we use Singer’s or Kamm’s methods

next step

Thomson has a different method.

old: (And we can identify how they might.)

‘why is it that Edward may turn that trolley to save his five, but David may not cut up his healthy specimen to save his five? I like to call this the trolley problem, in honor of Mrs. Foot's example’

(Thomson, 1976, p. 206).

Foot (1967): because duties not to harm rank above duties to help

‘Edward is the driver of a trolley, whose brakes have just failed. [...] Edward can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, killing the five’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 206).

May Edward turn the trolley?

‘David can take the healthy specimen's parts, killing him, and install them in his [five] patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen's parts, letting his [five] patients die’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 206).

May David kill the healthy person?

‘Frank is a passenger on a trolley whose driver has just shouted that the trolley's brakes have failed, and who then died of the shock. [...] Frank can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, letting the five die’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 207).

May Frank turn the trolley?

Why may Edward but not David?

Foot: not harm > help

So see how we modified the case of Edward to get Frank. Thomson is aiming to make Frank so that Frank would be harming in order to help. (Recall that Foot thought the key to understanding how people respond to these dilemmas is that they think a duty not to harm outweighs a duty to help.)

Why may Frank but not David?

So let me bring back David’s case for comparison.

‘David can take the healthy specimen's parts, killing him, and install them in his [five] patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen's parts, letting his [five] patients die’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 206).

May David kill the healthy person?

‘Frank is a passenger on a trolley whose driver has just shouted that the trolley's brakes have failed, and who then died of the shock. [...] Frank can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, letting the five die’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 207).

May Frank turn the trolley?

Why may Frank but not David?

Why may Edward but not David?

Foot (1967): because duties not to harm rank above duties to help

Thomson’s argument

If Foot, then Frank may not.

But Frank may.

I’m simplifying: Thomson gives this further scrutiny later in the paper (the school-boy playing on the tracks ...).

Therefore: not Foot.

‘Frank is a passenger on a trolley whose driver has just shouted that the trolley's brakes have failed, and who then died of the shock. [...] Frank can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, letting the five die’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 207).

May Frank turn the trolley?

Thomson’s proposal

‘what matters [...] is whether the agent distributes it by doing something to it, or whether he distributes it by doing something to a person’

(Thomson, 1976, p. 216).

‘Frank is a passenger on a trolley whose driver has just shouted that the trolley's brakes have failed, and who then died of the shock. [...] Frank can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, letting the five die’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 207).

May Frank turn the trolley?

‘David can take the healthy specimen's parts, killing him, and install them in his [five] patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen's parts, letting his [five] patients die’ (Thomson, 1976, p. 206).

May David kill the healthy person?

distinguish normative from psychological claims

1. [normative] Why may Edward turn the trolley while David may not cut up the healthy human?

2. [psychological] What determines why some people judge, on reflection, that Edward turn the trolley while David may not cut up the healthy human?

Foot’s method

Thomson’s method???

Thomson’s method

[premise] There is a morally relevant difference between David and Edward.

[premise] There is no morally relevant difference between Edward and Frank.

[premise] ...

[conclusion] Thomson’s principle better explains the moral facts than Foot’s principle.

In Thomson’s argument, the premise is about a moral fact, not about why people make a judgement.
Again, a moral fact.

Foot’s argument

premises about what people judge and why they so judge
[psychological]

-> discoveries in moral psychology are directly relevant

Thomson’s argument

premises about what what should be done
[normative]

-> discoveries in moral psychology are not directly relevant

[Stress that in much of ethics, the arguments are all about moral facts and so moral psychology is not directly relevant.]
But, as we will see, maybe they are indirectly relevant ...

Thomson’s method

[premise] There is a morally relevant difference between David and Edward.

[premise] There is no morally relevant difference between Edward and Frank.

[premise] ...

[conclusion] Thomson’s principle better explains the moral facts than Foot’s principle.

(how) do I know?