Trolley Problem


Also found in: Wikipedia.
A hypothetical moral dilemma:
(1) If person A allows a speeding trolley to continue along its path—i.e., does not act—multiple people will be killed
(2) If person A instead causes one person’s death—i.e., does act—multiple people are saved; therein lies the dilemma: passively allow multiple deaths, or actively kill one—i.e., commit homicide—but save many
References in periodicals archive ?
In the trolley problem, five workmen will be killed by a runaway trolley unless you move a track switch which will divert the train but kill one workman--or, in another version, push a fat man off a bridge stopping the trolley.
He also revealingly misinterprets the trolley problem as being grounded in the utilitarian principle [73], an interpretation that is quite implausible and is refuted by the very survey data he cites [i.
Much of the trolley problem is created by staff, much as I hate to say it.
In order to make their case, Hauser and others ask us to consider the celebrated Trolley problem.
There are two versions of the Trolley problem, each designed to expose the manner of how agents process the considered facts before deciding and whether such considerations would matter from a moral point of view.
1978); Judith Jarvis Thomson, "Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem," The Monist v.
FINDING A SOLUTION: (from left) Cllr Peter Lacey, Cllr Eric Linton, Cllr David Arrowsmith, Colin Walker secretary of the Spon End Development Trust and Whitefriars estate officer Wayne Pittam who worked together to solve the trolley problem
The Case for Killing the Trolley Problem (Or Letting It Die), BARBARA H.
Part 2 consists of two chapters: chapter 6, entitled "The Trolley Problem," and chapter 7, entitled "Harming Some to Save Others.
In chapter 6, she presents a detailed discussion of the Trolley Problem and other such dilemmas and the numerous variations on them to be found in the literature of applied ethics and analytic ethics.
It then outlines the destructive effect of trolley problems on ethical reasoning, and mounts a case for seeing moral reasoning as a consequence of reactive attitudes, arising from the attempt to reach a rational consensus in the things that we praise and blame.