Examlex
Judith Jarvis Thomson: The Trolley Problem
Consider the following case: A bystander can pull a switch, turning a runaway trolley off of a track on which it will kill five innocent people, and onto a track on which it will kill one innocent person. Call this case Bystander at the Switch. Now consider a different case: A surgeon can kill one of his perfectly healthy patients and use his organs to save five other dying patients. Call this case Transplant. In both of these cases, the agent is presented with an opportunity to save five lives for the cost of one. Yet most people believe that, while it is permissible to turn the trolley in Bystander at the Switch, it is impermissible to operate in Transplant. But what explains these different verdicts?
To answer this question, Thomson examines three proposals: killing v. letting die, using someone as a mere means, and the concept of rights. She argues against the first two proposals and in favor of the third. Killing v. letting die, Thomson claims, is too blunt an instrument to distinguish between these cases. Indeed, those endorsing the killing v. letting die distinction should, since bystander would be killing someone by flipping the switch, find bystander's act impermissible. But that, she argues, looks like the wrong verdict. Thomson insists that relying on using someone as a mere means also will not do the required work. Consider a "loop variant" of Bystander at the Switch, where the tracks do not diverge but circle back. Imagine that the five on the straight track are thin, but thick enough so that although all five will be killed if the trolley goes straight, the bodies of the five will stop it. and it will hence not reach the one. On the other hand, the one on the right-hand track is fat. so fat that his body will by itself stop the trolley, and the trolley will hence not reach the five. The loop variant ensures that Bystander must use the one as a means only, but adding the loop hardly seems to make a moral difference - even with the loop, Bystander acts permissibly by flipping the switch. This leaves the concept of rights.
Thomson argues that we can explain the different verdicts in Bystander at the Switch and Transplant by the following two features. First, the bystander saves the five by making something that threatens them instead threaten one. Second, the bystander does not do this saving by means which infringe any of the one's rights. These two features, Thomson concludes, allows us to justify our different intuitions in these two cases (and other difficult cases) .
-Thomson reports that when confronted with the Trolley Driver case, where the driver can turn the trolley onto the track with one to save the five:
Educational Attainment
Refers to the highest level of education an individual has completed.
Health Coverage
Insurance that typically pays for medical, surgical, prescription drug, and sometimes dental expenses incurred by the insured.
Poverty
The state of having insufficient financial resources to meet basic living expenses such as food, clothing, and shelter.
Proficiency in English
The ability to use the English language effectively and accurately in communication.
Q2: What do you think is the strongest
Q5: Wolf-Devine claims that affirmative action has the
Q7: According to moderate nihilism, naturalism misconstrues the
Q9: Mackie objects to noncognitivism on the grounds
Q14: Mitigating circumstances are those that provide some
Q19: A study released by the University of
Q22: On appeal, the Court held that in
Q22: Shue believes that his three principles of
Q26: According to Foot, what distinction underlies the
Q32: According to Wolf-Devine, the number of women