Skip to main content

What is the doctrine of double effect and how can the doctrine of double effect explain why it is morally acceptable to reroute the train in the...

What you are discussing here is what is called the "trolley problem." It was first postulated by British philosopher Philippa Ruth Foot in 1967, but has been discussed by many other philosophers. It is based on a thought experiment.


Imagine that you are driving a trolley and the brakes fail. Ahead of you, you see five workers on the track. You also notice a spur off to your right occupied by a single worker. Most people...

What you are discussing here is what is called the "trolley problem." It was first postulated by British philosopher Philippa Ruth Foot in 1967, but has been discussed by many other philosophers. It is based on a thought experiment.


Imagine that you are driving a trolley and the brakes fail. Ahead of you, you see five workers on the track. You also notice a spur off to your right occupied by a single worker. Most people would argue that the better ethical choice in this situation is to save the five workers. The choice to turn off on the spur has a double effect of saving five workers and killing one. The death of the single worker is an unintended consequence that you as a trolley driver did not actively will.


In the second variant of the problem, one of the trolley passengers is a fat man. You have the option of pushing the fat man off the front of the trolley so that his body will slow the trolley down and save the workers. Morally, although the number of deaths are the same as in the spur problem, because killing the fat man involves actively willing his death, most philosophers argue (1) the two situations differ ethically and (2) the fat man problem constitutes a serious if not fatal objection to pure consequentialism.

Popular posts from this blog

In chapter one of The Great Gatsby, what advice does Nick's father give him? How does this make him a good person to tell this story?

Nick says that his father advised him that, before "criticizing anyone," he "remember that all the people in this world haven't had the same advantages" as Nick.  As a result, Nick claims that he is "inclined to reserve all judgments," presenting himself to the reader as a fair and dispassionate arbiter of character, and thus, a reliable narrator.   The problem is that Nick immediately reveals himself as anything but reliable, as he then launches... Nick says that his father advised him that, before "criticizing anyone," he "remember that all the people in this world haven't had the same advantages" as Nick.  As a result, Nick claims that he is "inclined to reserve all judgments," presenting himself to the reader as a fair and dispassionate arbiter of character, and thus, a reliable narrator.   The problem is that Nick immediately reveals himself as anything but reliable, as he then launches into a discussion of how pe...
Post a Comment
Read more

How and why does James Gatz become Jay Gatsby? Describe the young Gatsby/Gatz.

James Gatz, a poor Midwestern boy of probable Jewish lineage, becomes Jay Gatsby, a presumed WASP and wealthy socialite, when he moves to New York City and acquires his fortune. It is wealth that has allowed Gatz to transform himself into Gatsby. However, those who know his background (e.g., Daisy and Tom Buchanan) never allow him to forget that he is nouveau riche -- that is, an upstart who has just recently made his fortune,... James Gatz, a poor Midwestern boy of probable Jewish lineage, becomes Jay Gatsby, a presumed WASP and wealthy socialite, when he moves to New York City and acquires his fortune. It is wealth that has allowed Gatz to transform himself into Gatsby. However, those who know his background (e.g., Daisy and Tom Buchanan) never allow him to forget that he is nouveau riche -- that is, an upstart who has just recently made his fortune, whereas they arose from well-to-do families. Gatz became Gatsby through determination and discipline. At the end of the novel, the narr...
Post a Comment
Read more

Explain and discuss how the definitions of freedom change for the nation, for the freedmen and for southern whites after the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the definition of freedom changed in the nation, as slavery was ended with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865. The practice of slavery was disallowed, but definition of the freedom that would take its place was a subject of controversy, ongoing debate, and even violence in the decades to come.  For freedmen, freedom often meant reconciling with their families, who were broken up by slavery; choosing which church to... After the Civil War, the definition of freedom changed in the nation, as slavery was ended with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865. The practice of slavery was disallowed, but definition of the freedom that would take its place was a subject of controversy, ongoing debate, and even violence in the decades to come.  For freedmen, freedom often meant reconciling with their families, who were broken up by slavery; choosing which church to belong to without being ordered to attend religious services (or not to attend) by their mast...
Post a Comment
Read more