Judith Thomson, The Trolley Problem | Killing And Letting Die | Philosophy Core Concepts
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ค. 2021
- Support my work here - / sadler
or Buy Me A Coffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teachable.com/
This is a video in my new Core Concepts series -- designed to provide students and lifelong learners a brief discussion focused on one main concept from a classic philosophical text and thinker.
This Core Concept video focuses on Judith Jarvis Thomson's article "The Trolley Problem", and examines her discussion of the distinction Philippa Foot makes between killing and letting die. This seems to promise a solution to the "Trolley Problem", namely why it would be all right to kill one in place of killing five in the Trolley Driver scenario, while it is not all right to kill one instead of letting 5 die in the Transplant scenario. Thompson argues that this distinction isn't by itself sufficient for solving the problem
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/ReasonIO
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me, click here: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
You can get a copy of Judith Jarvis Thomson's The Trolley Problem here - digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/c...
I have taught this example in my Argumentation class many times and, yet, I learned quite a bit from your analysis. Thank you!
You’re very welcome
It may be the difference between the trolley cases and the surgeon comes down to peril and luck. Even though technically the one person on the side track isn't in peril unless you make them so, it kinda feels like they are - that they are a part of the situation and it's only luck preventing their being killed rather than the five (luck that the trolley just happens to be going down the track with the five rather than theirs).
We can see this if we alter the scenario in a slightly sci-fi way by saying we have the option to beam-out the five Star Trek style, but with the knowledge that one person completely unconnected with the situation will be beamed-in. One minute sat at home watching TV, next minute you've beamed them into peril. I think less people would be happy with that. And similarly we feel the person having the health check-up just isn't part of the perilous situation.
If we accept this then why would this be? I'd suggest it's because when the one is in peril we're messing with luck - with the odds, but when the one wasn't in peril until you chose to put them there, it's all you're will, with no prior unluckiness of their being in that situation there to offset your will.
It does not. Not for Thompson
@@opinionate-by-thesyllogist No. You can watch the video or read the linked piece
@@opinionate-by-thesyllogist Already answered you
in trolley problem- u have to choose btw killing 1 fat or 5 thin person but if we look at the action itself self we are murdering someone either way....so a utilitarian would say - i saved 5 people while deontologist would say- i murdered 1 person. so i case of killing/letting die the action holds the value rather then the consequence of that action, is that it?
Read the text. It’s linked to right there in the video description. You'll figure out how and why you're wrong in your declarations about what trolley problems are
@@GregoryBSadler hi! I checked the description but I don't think the link to the article is there, could you post it again please?
@@robertogonzalez6083 Link was there, just mislabeled. If you'd clicked it, you'd have gotten the piece
@@GregoryBSadler ah, thanks.