The Trolley Problem - Judith Jarvis Thomson (1978)

A few clips of Judith Jarvis Thomson discussing an early version of the famous "trolley problem" in a 1978 lecture on the right to life given at Iowa State University. The full lecture can be found here: • The Right to Life - Ju...
#philosophy #ethics #moralphilosophy

[@user-ch2mp9cq2c]

5:43 I was waiting her to say "now let's suppose that you're the fat person..."

[@longcastle4863]

Handsome problem describes it perfectly

[@williamfrost3554]

Destroy the trolly.

[@-UPGRADE-]

The mouth sounds tho

[@T1Wilfredo]

almost made me stop listening to

[@missk1942]

ASMR

[@ghamessmona]

❤

[@marekmican99]

😢

[@francpez7564]

I don't see a problem in the trolley problem scenario. The answer is simple. You do nothing. The one that set the training in motion it's at fault. If you intervene, you will be a fault.

[@easyaccessjeans]

Perhaps you will be at fault. But let's suppose for a moment that there is an objective moral theory that is absolutely correct, as if it were divinely written into the code of existence. This moral theory is in line with your assertion - that to intervene in any way would be morally wrong and would make you utterly and totally blame-worthy for the death of the individual killed. The morally correct action is to not intervene and let the trolley hit the five workers. This is inarguable and absolute. Here's my question: in this scenario, while it would certainly be prudent to maintain one's own moral status by not engaging in an objectively immoral action, would it not also be selfish? Sure, you can maintain that you did the right thing by abstaining from pulling the lever, but five people still died as a result of your inaction. Why not sacrifice your moral status of being a good person in order to save five? Your legacy will forever be stained by your murderous act, you will go to prison - you may even go to Hell, but your truly altruistic self-sacrifce will allow for these five people to live. All you have to do is resign yourself to being an objectively bad person, and these five innocent people will go on living. It is a self-sacrifice of the highest order. You will receive only punishment for your action, but five innocent people will live. I think the best answer to choose is to save the five, even if it means you will forever be cast as immoral and evil, perhaps even by the gods. Engaging "morally" in this scenario is merely self-serving.

[@francpez7564]

@@easyaccessjeans Why not sacrifice my moral status of being a good person to save five? That’s a very interesting Question. I believe that I wouldn't surrender my moral status or goodness because sacrificing oneself unconditionally would be self-defeating. Unfortunately, this world is inherently evil. One must always be on guard to deflect evil and preserve the goodness in oneself. In this scenario, much evil would befall me if I were to intervene. Sacrificing one’s moral status for murder would be a crime in itself. In this scenario, everyone is self-serving. The five people on the tracks want to live at any cost. That one person on the other set of tracks wants to live at the expense of the five people. And I would want to preserve my moral goodness by not intervening. It’s all very interesting.

[@mega4171]

You may not be at fault, but not making a choice is still a choice

[@francpez7564]

@@mega4171 yes, a choice without fault is the greater choice.