What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge?: A Philosophical Conundrum
A trolley is careering out of control. Up ahead are five workers; on a spur to the right stands a lone individual. You, a bystander, happen to be standing next to a switch that could divert the trolley, which would save the five, but sacrifice the one—do you pull it? Or say you’re watching from an overpass. The only way to save the workers is to drop a heavy object in the trolley’s path. And you’re standing next to a really fat man…. This ethical conundrum—based on British philosopher Philippa Foot’s 1967 thought experiment—has inspired decades of lively argument around the world. Now Thomas Cathcart, coauthor of the New York Times bestseller Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar , brings his sharp intelligence, quirky humor, and gift for popularizing serious ideas to “the trolley problem.” Framing the issue as a possible crime that is to be tried in the Court of Public Opinion, Cathcart explores philosophy and ethics, intuition and logic. Along the way he makes connections to the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham, Kant’s limits of reason, St. Thomas Aquinas’s fascinating Principle of Double Effect, and more. Read with an open mind, this provocative book will challenge your deepest held notions of right and wrong. Would you divert the trolley? Kill one to save five? Would you throw the fat man off the bridge?
144 pages, Hardcover
First published September 10, 2013
About the author
Thomas Cathcart
14 books144 followersThomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein wrote the bestselling Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes, which will be translated into more than a dozen languages. Not bad for a couple of philosophy majors from Harvard who tried on various careers after graduation. Tom worked with street gangs in Chicago, doctors at Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and dropped in and out of divinity schools. Dan has written jokes for various comedians, including Flip Wilson and Lily Tomlin. Tom lives on Cape Cod with his wife. Dan lives in the Berkshires with his wife. Together, they are also authors of the politically incorrect book of daily affirmations Macho Meditations."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews
June 13, 2023
British philosopher Philippa Foot’s 1967 thought experiment makes us question cause and effect when dealing with ethical choices. Just don't get to close to an edge - don't let anyone get behind you - you never know when you will feel that 'push' that sends you over. On a side note: would love to see Laurel and Hardy play this one out: 'Trolley Problem Tracking' would be a good title!
November 12, 2018
Everything is what it is and not another thing. -Bishop Joseph Butler
Perhaps you are familiar with the moral dilemma known as “The trolley problem”. If not, it goes something like this:
You are standing near some railroad tracks. On one track there are five people, who for reasons unclear are unable to get off the track. On another track stands a single man, also unable to extricate himself. A trolley is approaching the five people and will certainly hit and kill them. Next to you however is a lever that will divert the trolley and kill the lone individual on the other track instead. Do you pull the lever to save the five while almost certainly killing the one or do you let fate run its course?
A corollary to this exercise is that you are standing at the same tracks with the same five people unable to move and facing certain and impending death. This time there is no lever but there is a very large man standing next to you. If you pushed him onto the track and in front of the trolley it would almost certainly slow the train down enough to save the loves of the five while killing him. Do you do it?
Thomas Cathcart in “The Trolley Problem or, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge?”, examines the moral and ethical dilemmas involved in answering these question. He does so in the form of a mock trial in which a fictional “Daphne Jones” us brought to trial for pulling the switch that saved the lives of five but killed one. We follow her trial, the thinking of religious leaders, the jury, and others and how they justify or disagree with Jones’s decision.
It is an extremely short read but packed with so many fascinating insights that it reads even faster than expected. I especially like that Cathcart provides no resolution (how could you?) but instead leaves it to the reader to think critically about how we would arrive at choices we make everyday that while not as momentous as this one, still impact our lives. In particular, he cautions us on the use of analogy. It is easy for example to say that something is like something else. The man who pushes the fat man onto the tracks to save the five, is doing the same thing as the woman who throws the switch. Or is he?
Analogies are dangerous in that while there may be some similarities between the things being compared, it is just as likely that there are important differences as well. Does it for instance matter if the solitary man who dies in one scenario is a loved and accomplished pianist while the five who are spared are a mix of thieves and heroin addicts? Does taking action to physically push a man to his death differ in any way from pulling a switch from afar that accomplishes the same end?
One could argue, as Jeremy Bentham did that our actions should be guided by the principle of creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Or as Thomas Aquinas wrote:
“An act to be morally good may have bad effects as a by-product, but bad means must not be used to bring about a good end.”
The problem however as Cathcart sees it is, what is “good”. Unlike “pleasure” or “pain” which are scientifically quantifiable things, “good” is a value judgement. What may be food for you may not be good for me. Your exercising of “good” may also infringe on my idea of “good” to catastrophic effect as with the trolley problem.
There is no one answer here but this isn’t a book about answers. It’s a book about developing tools to think about problems. While it is highly unlikely the trolley problem will ever be directly relevant to our lives, the critical thinking we use to think about it is invaluable.
Perhaps you are familiar with the moral dilemma known as “The trolley problem”. If not, it goes something like this:
You are standing near some railroad tracks. On one track there are five people, who for reasons unclear are unable to get off the track. On another track stands a single man, also unable to extricate himself. A trolley is approaching the five people and will certainly hit and kill them. Next to you however is a lever that will divert the trolley and kill the lone individual on the other track instead. Do you pull the lever to save the five while almost certainly killing the one or do you let fate run its course?
A corollary to this exercise is that you are standing at the same tracks with the same five people unable to move and facing certain and impending death. This time there is no lever but there is a very large man standing next to you. If you pushed him onto the track and in front of the trolley it would almost certainly slow the train down enough to save the loves of the five while killing him. Do you do it?
Thomas Cathcart in “The Trolley Problem or, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge?”, examines the moral and ethical dilemmas involved in answering these question. He does so in the form of a mock trial in which a fictional “Daphne Jones” us brought to trial for pulling the switch that saved the lives of five but killed one. We follow her trial, the thinking of religious leaders, the jury, and others and how they justify or disagree with Jones’s decision.
It is an extremely short read but packed with so many fascinating insights that it reads even faster than expected. I especially like that Cathcart provides no resolution (how could you?) but instead leaves it to the reader to think critically about how we would arrive at choices we make everyday that while not as momentous as this one, still impact our lives. In particular, he cautions us on the use of analogy. It is easy for example to say that something is like something else. The man who pushes the fat man onto the tracks to save the five, is doing the same thing as the woman who throws the switch. Or is he?
Analogies are dangerous in that while there may be some similarities between the things being compared, it is just as likely that there are important differences as well. Does it for instance matter if the solitary man who dies in one scenario is a loved and accomplished pianist while the five who are spared are a mix of thieves and heroin addicts? Does taking action to physically push a man to his death differ in any way from pulling a switch from afar that accomplishes the same end?
One could argue, as Jeremy Bentham did that our actions should be guided by the principle of creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Or as Thomas Aquinas wrote:
“An act to be morally good may have bad effects as a by-product, but bad means must not be used to bring about a good end.”
The problem however as Cathcart sees it is, what is “good”. Unlike “pleasure” or “pain” which are scientifically quantifiable things, “good” is a value judgement. What may be food for you may not be good for me. Your exercising of “good” may also infringe on my idea of “good” to catastrophic effect as with the trolley problem.
There is no one answer here but this isn’t a book about answers. It’s a book about developing tools to think about problems. While it is highly unlikely the trolley problem will ever be directly relevant to our lives, the critical thinking we use to think about it is invaluable.
October 28, 2023
I’d never heard of the trolley problem before but essentially it is a philosophical musing on the ethics of utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham (before he ended up mummified sitting in a cupboard at UCL) believed that all decisions should be arrived at taking into account the benefit to the greatest number so the trolley problem is should a tram driver that is out of control divert the tram from its path where it would kill five people on a track to a track where it would kill only one.
The question is presented as if it really did happen and the tram driver is in court following her decision to divert the tram thereby killing one to save five. Each chapter gives the view of a relevant expert, prosecution, defence, psychologist and the like. The question is then broadened to ask what if you saw the tram from a bridge and to save the five people you threw the fat guy, stood on the bridge with you, onto the tracks to stop the tram. It even moves away from trams to ask should a surgeon harvest the organs of one healthy person in order to save five that need an organ transplant.
Of course being philosophy there are numerous rabbit holes – what if one of the five was a serial rapist or murderer? What if the lone guy was on the verge of finding a cure for cancer? What if…? What if...?
The notion of why some sacrifices are more palatable than others is an interesting one, how does our morality determine intervening in one case is permissible but criminal in others where the outcome is the same in both instances and I would have liked a deeper discussion of it which the light-hearted, superficial treatment of the question didn’t allow for.
This is entry level philosophy presented in a very accessible and engaging, albeit less than profound, way which fails to address the question at the very heart of the book which is, why are so many people standing around on tram tracks in the first place?
The question is presented as if it really did happen and the tram driver is in court following her decision to divert the tram thereby killing one to save five. Each chapter gives the view of a relevant expert, prosecution, defence, psychologist and the like. The question is then broadened to ask what if you saw the tram from a bridge and to save the five people you threw the fat guy, stood on the bridge with you, onto the tracks to stop the tram. It even moves away from trams to ask should a surgeon harvest the organs of one healthy person in order to save five that need an organ transplant.
Of course being philosophy there are numerous rabbit holes – what if one of the five was a serial rapist or murderer? What if the lone guy was on the verge of finding a cure for cancer? What if…? What if...?
The notion of why some sacrifices are more palatable than others is an interesting one, how does our morality determine intervening in one case is permissible but criminal in others where the outcome is the same in both instances and I would have liked a deeper discussion of it which the light-hearted, superficial treatment of the question didn’t allow for.
This is entry level philosophy presented in a very accessible and engaging, albeit less than profound, way which fails to address the question at the very heart of the book which is, why are so many people standing around on tram tracks in the first place?
December 6, 2013
I began this book feeling a certain why about whether or not Daphne Jones was guilty. Based on the arguments presented throughout the book, I found that my stance changed. On the surface, the issue at hand seemed simple and like a no brainer. But this is truly a multi-layered issue. This is a good book that challenges you about your beliefs and why you believe what you do.
December 31, 2021
Philippa Foot was an English philosopher influenced by the works of Aristotle. She was also the pioneer of a thought experiment that has not just tickled the attention of an eclectic bunch of professionals from psychologists to law enforcement agencies, to politicians to sociologists, but has also spawned a cottage industry going by the imaginative moniker of “Trolleyology”. So what exactly is Trolleyology or the trolley problem? In 1967, Philippa Foot, in an intuitive essay written in the context of the controversy surrounding abortion, set out this hypothetical scenario. The driver of a runaway tram finds himself caught in a unique conundrum. He sees five people ahead of him on the track on which the tram is hurtling away. All of them would be killed if the tram was to maintain its speedy course. However, there is an option for the driver to ‘steer’ the tram onto a sidetrack on which just one man is standing. What should the driver do? Should he divert the tram onto the sidetrack thereby minimizing the loss of lives, or should he continue maintaining the current course?
In the year 1985, American philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson further confounded the trolley problem by introducing the ‘fat man’. During those days it was not considered offensive or rude to employ terms such as fat. In today’s world, a reference to this thought experiment has the words, hefty, burly or large instead of fat. Thomson posed the following dilemma to her readers. You are standing on a footbridge over the tram track. This time there is only a single track with five people standing on it. There is no choice for the driver to steer the runaway tram onto another sidetrack. The only way to stop the tram would be to obstruct its progress by placing a heavy object in front of it. Next to you on the footbridge is a very heavy man. If the man was to be gently pushed off the footbridge, he would land just in front of the tram and impede its progress. While obviously he will die, the death of five others would be avoided. Would you push the fat man off the bridge?
Thomas Cathcart in his humorous, charming and slim book, appropriately titled “The Trolley Problem” attempts to tackle the dilemma associated with both the trolley and the footbridge scenarios by taking recourse to a hypothetical newspaper account that details the charges against a fictional heroine who is being hauled up by the local prosecutor, under the allegation that she "had no right to play God" by diverting a streetcar toward a single victim, although in the process she saved five other lives. The trial is conducted in a “court of public opinion” where in addition to the lawyers representing the plaintiff and the defendant, there are also opinions and representations from a professor, a bishop, a psychologist, and also listeners tuning into a radio call-in broadcast.
Cathcart stress tests the actions of the imagined accused Daphne Jones against some of the most popular concepts in moral philosophy to ascertain whether her actions can stand vindicated. In the process, the author also illustrates the evolution of thought in the field of philosophy. Thus we have Jeremy Bentham’s “Utilitarianism” which advocates for actions to be deemed right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. Hence the survival of five as weighted against the death of a solitary individual should be construed as an act that had in mind the benefit of the majority. However, this is a doctrine that falls afoul of commonsense and propriety when bestowed a carte blanche application. A majority in a country for instance cannot decide that it is ok for the minority to either starve to death or be in a state of perennial material and socio-economic deprivation.
Then there is the incredible hair splitting “Doctrine of Double Effect” (DDE) first promulgated by St Thomas Aquinas. DDE proposes that if four critical conditions are satisfied then an act that has pessimistic or unfortunate consequences can still be deemed to be exercised in rightful conduct. The four conditions are: the act considered independently of its harmful effects is not in itself wrong; the agent intends the good and does not intend the harm either as means or end; there is no way to achieve the good without causing the harmful effects; and the harmful effects are not disproportionately large relative to the good being sought. Thus while redirecting the tram to a sidetrack may be deemed acceptable because it amounts to just redirecting an existing threat, shoving a human being off a footbridge would not be acceptable because it represents introducing a threat. Moreover the act of pushing a person off the footbridge becomes a personal act as against a relatively impersonal one of driving a tram.
In addition to Bentham’s logic, there are also allusions to concepts propounded by Immanuel Kant, David Hume and a few other seminal philosophers. However Cathcart does not resort to either verbiage or jargon in providing a rudimentary understanding of the basic essence underlying these tenets. This is what makes the book not just interesting, but refreshingly compelling as well.
So finally for the verdict. Oh before that:
A trolley is heading toward five thin men and upon colliding against them will come to a stop but not before killing all of them. You as a bystander, however, have an option to turn the trolley onto a loop. One fat man is tied onto the loop. His weight alone will stop the trolley, preventing it from continuing around the loop and killing the five. Should you turn the trolley down the loop?
All the very best! As for the decision in the Daphne Jones case – did you actually think I would set out the verdict in this review?
In the year 1985, American philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson further confounded the trolley problem by introducing the ‘fat man’. During those days it was not considered offensive or rude to employ terms such as fat. In today’s world, a reference to this thought experiment has the words, hefty, burly or large instead of fat. Thomson posed the following dilemma to her readers. You are standing on a footbridge over the tram track. This time there is only a single track with five people standing on it. There is no choice for the driver to steer the runaway tram onto another sidetrack. The only way to stop the tram would be to obstruct its progress by placing a heavy object in front of it. Next to you on the footbridge is a very heavy man. If the man was to be gently pushed off the footbridge, he would land just in front of the tram and impede its progress. While obviously he will die, the death of five others would be avoided. Would you push the fat man off the bridge?
Thomas Cathcart in his humorous, charming and slim book, appropriately titled “The Trolley Problem” attempts to tackle the dilemma associated with both the trolley and the footbridge scenarios by taking recourse to a hypothetical newspaper account that details the charges against a fictional heroine who is being hauled up by the local prosecutor, under the allegation that she "had no right to play God" by diverting a streetcar toward a single victim, although in the process she saved five other lives. The trial is conducted in a “court of public opinion” where in addition to the lawyers representing the plaintiff and the defendant, there are also opinions and representations from a professor, a bishop, a psychologist, and also listeners tuning into a radio call-in broadcast.
Cathcart stress tests the actions of the imagined accused Daphne Jones against some of the most popular concepts in moral philosophy to ascertain whether her actions can stand vindicated. In the process, the author also illustrates the evolution of thought in the field of philosophy. Thus we have Jeremy Bentham’s “Utilitarianism” which advocates for actions to be deemed right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. Hence the survival of five as weighted against the death of a solitary individual should be construed as an act that had in mind the benefit of the majority. However, this is a doctrine that falls afoul of commonsense and propriety when bestowed a carte blanche application. A majority in a country for instance cannot decide that it is ok for the minority to either starve to death or be in a state of perennial material and socio-economic deprivation.
Then there is the incredible hair splitting “Doctrine of Double Effect” (DDE) first promulgated by St Thomas Aquinas. DDE proposes that if four critical conditions are satisfied then an act that has pessimistic or unfortunate consequences can still be deemed to be exercised in rightful conduct. The four conditions are: the act considered independently of its harmful effects is not in itself wrong; the agent intends the good and does not intend the harm either as means or end; there is no way to achieve the good without causing the harmful effects; and the harmful effects are not disproportionately large relative to the good being sought. Thus while redirecting the tram to a sidetrack may be deemed acceptable because it amounts to just redirecting an existing threat, shoving a human being off a footbridge would not be acceptable because it represents introducing a threat. Moreover the act of pushing a person off the footbridge becomes a personal act as against a relatively impersonal one of driving a tram.
In addition to Bentham’s logic, there are also allusions to concepts propounded by Immanuel Kant, David Hume and a few other seminal philosophers. However Cathcart does not resort to either verbiage or jargon in providing a rudimentary understanding of the basic essence underlying these tenets. This is what makes the book not just interesting, but refreshingly compelling as well.
So finally for the verdict. Oh before that:
A trolley is heading toward five thin men and upon colliding against them will come to a stop but not before killing all of them. You as a bystander, however, have an option to turn the trolley onto a loop. One fat man is tied onto the loop. His weight alone will stop the trolley, preventing it from continuing around the loop and killing the five. Should you turn the trolley down the loop?
All the very best! As for the decision in the Daphne Jones case – did you actually think I would set out the verdict in this review?
June 5, 2014
'The Trolley Problem' takes a philosophical problem and expands it out into a clever way to explain some philosophical ideas. The trolley problem is a question that has been asked for a while. A trolley is out of control. On the track ahead are five people, who for whatever reason, are unable to get out of the way. You are standing by a switch that can divert the trolley to a side track, but there is a lone person on this track who will be killed instead. Do you throw the switch to save the five people or do you let matters take their course?
The book is presented as a court case that is played in the modern media. It takes place in one of the few cities left that has trolleys, San Francisco. There are police reports, attorney statements, public debates on the radio and in classrooms. Throughout are interwoven the underpinning arguments and schools of philosophy. There are also a few wrinkles added to show variants on the Trolley Problem. Does doing nothing make you a murderer, or throwing the switch and dooming the lone man? Is it right to kill one to save some?
It's an interesting moral/ethical conundrum and Thomas Cathcart presents it in a highly readable manner. It's easy to see why this problem has prompted debate. I found it intelligent and fascinating.
I was given a review copy of this ebook by Workman Publishing Company and Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. Thank you for allowing me to review this great book.
The book is presented as a court case that is played in the modern media. It takes place in one of the few cities left that has trolleys, San Francisco. There are police reports, attorney statements, public debates on the radio and in classrooms. Throughout are interwoven the underpinning arguments and schools of philosophy. There are also a few wrinkles added to show variants on the Trolley Problem. Does doing nothing make you a murderer, or throwing the switch and dooming the lone man? Is it right to kill one to save some?
It's an interesting moral/ethical conundrum and Thomas Cathcart presents it in a highly readable manner. It's easy to see why this problem has prompted debate. I found it intelligent and fascinating.
I was given a review copy of this ebook by Workman Publishing Company and Netgalley in exchange for an honest review. Thank you for allowing me to review this great book.
July 24, 2013
The Trolley Problem poses an interesting philosophical dilemma. If faced with having to choose between leaving a runaway trolley car on course to kill five people, or taking an action that will divert the trolley and only kill one, what would you do and why? Would your actions make you a good person or a bad person.
Cathcart presents the problem as a trial in the court of public opinion with a woman on trial for homicide for diverting the trolley. Is she guilty of manslaughter, or simply making the best choice she had in an impossible circumstance. Various philosophical points of view are presented by the fictional people arguing and discussing the case in the book. Sidebars with the biographies and the philosophies of the philosophers being presented accompany each discussion.
I was amazed at how well the book presented numerous points of view in looking at the moral and ethical issues that guide our decision. It was especially interesting to read in the wake of the George Zimmerman trial as you puzzle over the decisions and statements made by the jury. Where would they stand on this issue.
If nothing else, the Trolley Problem, Or Would You Throw The Fat Guy Off The Bridge, is a great introduction to philosophy for those, like me, with little direct experience with it. It's a quick and entertaining read that enlightens. Recommended.
Cathcart presents the problem as a trial in the court of public opinion with a woman on trial for homicide for diverting the trolley. Is she guilty of manslaughter, or simply making the best choice she had in an impossible circumstance. Various philosophical points of view are presented by the fictional people arguing and discussing the case in the book. Sidebars with the biographies and the philosophies of the philosophers being presented accompany each discussion.
I was amazed at how well the book presented numerous points of view in looking at the moral and ethical issues that guide our decision. It was especially interesting to read in the wake of the George Zimmerman trial as you puzzle over the decisions and statements made by the jury. Where would they stand on this issue.
If nothing else, the Trolley Problem, Or Would You Throw The Fat Guy Off The Bridge, is a great introduction to philosophy for those, like me, with little direct experience with it. It's a quick and entertaining read that enlightens. Recommended.
September 12, 2016
Quick little read that took me 2 hours while I was waiting for my parents at the library. This book presents a fictional real-life scenario where a woman actually had to make a decision to pull the level on a runaway train - thus either doing nothing and letting 5 people die, or kill 1 person - and she actually did pull the level and kill someone. From the perspective of the prosecutor, the defense, and the jury, as well as the public, such as university students, we see a variety of ethical conundrums presented by this sticky situation. Cathcart manages to present this classic philosophical problem in a manner understandable by the layman, and yet it covers a good amount of ideas, albeit a little shallowly.
June 13, 2016
I quite liked this book, not that there is any surprise there. I read most of the books by this philosopher/author and love the way he applies philosophical doctrines to everyday life, common situations and events we face daily.
In this particular case, I also liked the was the different school of thought and fields of study were presented in the High Court of Public Opinion. I think it portrays an interesting overview not only at the way we judge and make decisions, but also at how those options affect higher orders in life (such as government, justice, education, etc).
It's quite easy to read and understand, and at the same time entertaining. I definitely recommend it!
In this particular case, I also liked the was the different school of thought and fields of study were presented in the High Court of Public Opinion. I think it portrays an interesting overview not only at the way we judge and make decisions, but also at how those options affect higher orders in life (such as government, justice, education, etc).
It's quite easy to read and understand, and at the same time entertaining. I definitely recommend it!
December 22, 2013
Premise of the book is a familiar one - the trolley problem. Using it as anchor, it brings forth the various schools of thought for ethical reasoning. A good book to get a crash course on the prominent philosophical schools of thoughts and an exercise in critical thinking. The format in which it is presented is also very accessible.
An easy yet elucidating read.
An easy yet elucidating read.
May 22, 2018
Kısacası, biz insani varlıklar bu şekilde donatıldığımız için ahlaki hükümler veririz. Ellerimizle birini öldürme düşüncesine karşı olmamız, başka bir insan tarafından kasten öldürülmüş olma korkumuza ilişkindir.
4,5/5⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Bu tarz kitaplara okuduğuma pek tanıklık edemezsiniz ve bu durumu biraz olsun değiştirmek için iki sene önce aldığım Troleybüs Problemi'ni uzun süre kitaplığımın misafiri olup nihayet ikinci denememde başına oturup okumayı başarabildim. Kitabı daha okumadan önce defalarca kez dış kapağını sıyırıp iç çizimine baktığımı bilirim ama okumak bugüne kısmetmiş. Amerika'da bir toplu taşıma aracı olan troleybüsün birçok kazanın başrolünü oynamasının ardından son bir olayla birlikte geçmişteki tüm çetelesinin ortaya dökülmesini okuyoruz. Raydaki beş kişiyi ezmek üzere olan troleybüsü durdurmak için diğer hattaki bir kişinin ölmesini sağlayan bir bayan, yine durmayan bir troleybüsün raydaki beş kişiyi öldürmesini durdurmak için troleybüsün önüne şişman bir adamı iterek onun ölümüne sebep olup diğer beş adamın hayatını kurtaran bir adam. Ve bu tür dörtten fazla kişinin ölmesi yerine tek bir kişinin ölüme itilip, ölü sayısının azalmasına dair sayfalarca tartışmalar, teoriler ve avukat duruşmaları. Aslında kitap tamamen varolmamış bir olayın olsaydı hangi adımlarla halk ve hukuk arasında adım adım ilerleyeceğini anlatıyor. Her sayfayı çevirdiğinizde farklı bir düşünce yapısıyla ve farklı bir örnekle karşılaşıp, ünlü felsefe düşünürlerinin kesin fikirleri üzerinden insanların yaptığı tartışmalara tanıklık ediyorsunuz. Bu arada bu kitapta belki de hiç adını duymadığınız on parmağa yetecek kadar düşünürle tanışacak kadar ballısınız. Okuduğum onca teori ve tartışmadan sonra bana sorarsanız ben şişman adamı üst geçitten aşağı atmazdım. Bakalım siz de okuyun kararınızı verin. Kesinlikle okumanızı öneririm ayrıca. Yazarın bir diğer kitabı Aristoteles ve Bir Karıncayiyen Washington'a Gider kitabını da en yakın zamanda okumak istiyorum. Sizlere de bol keyifli okumalar dilerim..
4,5/5⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Bu tarz kitaplara okuduğuma pek tanıklık edemezsiniz ve bu durumu biraz olsun değiştirmek için iki sene önce aldığım Troleybüs Problemi'ni uzun süre kitaplığımın misafiri olup nihayet ikinci denememde başına oturup okumayı başarabildim. Kitabı daha okumadan önce defalarca kez dış kapağını sıyırıp iç çizimine baktığımı bilirim ama okumak bugüne kısmetmiş. Amerika'da bir toplu taşıma aracı olan troleybüsün birçok kazanın başrolünü oynamasının ardından son bir olayla birlikte geçmişteki tüm çetelesinin ortaya dökülmesini okuyoruz. Raydaki beş kişiyi ezmek üzere olan troleybüsü durdurmak için diğer hattaki bir kişinin ölmesini sağlayan bir bayan, yine durmayan bir troleybüsün raydaki beş kişiyi öldürmesini durdurmak için troleybüsün önüne şişman bir adamı iterek onun ölümüne sebep olup diğer beş adamın hayatını kurtaran bir adam. Ve bu tür dörtten fazla kişinin ölmesi yerine tek bir kişinin ölüme itilip, ölü sayısının azalmasına dair sayfalarca tartışmalar, teoriler ve avukat duruşmaları. Aslında kitap tamamen varolmamış bir olayın olsaydı hangi adımlarla halk ve hukuk arasında adım adım ilerleyeceğini anlatıyor. Her sayfayı çevirdiğinizde farklı bir düşünce yapısıyla ve farklı bir örnekle karşılaşıp, ünlü felsefe düşünürlerinin kesin fikirleri üzerinden insanların yaptığı tartışmalara tanıklık ediyorsunuz. Bu arada bu kitapta belki de hiç adını duymadığınız on parmağa yetecek kadar düşünürle tanışacak kadar ballısınız. Okuduğum onca teori ve tartışmadan sonra bana sorarsanız ben şişman adamı üst geçitten aşağı atmazdım. Bakalım siz de okuyun kararınızı verin. Kesinlikle okumanızı öneririm ayrıca. Yazarın bir diğer kitabı Aristoteles ve Bir Karıncayiyen Washington'a Gider kitabını da en yakın zamanda okumak istiyorum. Sizlere de bol keyifli okumalar dilerim..
March 28, 2014
What we have here is neat way to communicate some concepts of moral philosophy in the form of a series of discussions about a hypothetical moral dilemma. Along the way we are treated to some of the more thoughtful work of great thinkers and some modern research into what constitutes a sense of right or wrong, good or bad for human beings.
There is some specific terminology and jargon from the philosopher's bag of tricks, but they are carefully explained in such a way that "utilitarian" and "categorical imperative" will be understood in their application to the Trolley Problem.
I thought the device of creating the "Court of Public Opinion" was brilliant, because it was based not on a common notion of what it means in a metaphorical sense, but on the actual fact that it has been the will of the public to change our Constitution multiple times to meet specific challenges and desires of the people.
This is a very thoughtful book, presented in an interesting manner, with a title that just tugged at my curiosity. It works!
There is some specific terminology and jargon from the philosopher's bag of tricks, but they are carefully explained in such a way that "utilitarian" and "categorical imperative" will be understood in their application to the Trolley Problem.
I thought the device of creating the "Court of Public Opinion" was brilliant, because it was based not on a common notion of what it means in a metaphorical sense, but on the actual fact that it has been the will of the public to change our Constitution multiple times to meet specific challenges and desires of the people.
This is a very thoughtful book, presented in an interesting manner, with a title that just tugged at my curiosity. It works!
January 5, 2014
When I finished The Trolley Problem, I had a headache...and I concurrently gave the book four stars.
As the author Cathcart notes, the trolley problem has been explored thoroughly for years, perhaps most popularly by Michael Sandel (see his book Justice). So what's new with this book?
Cathcart employs a clever device, a trial complete with prosecutor, defense attorney, psychologist, clergy member, judge, and jury. Through the many voices, the book explores the various ways to consider the trolley problem, and the book presents numerous analogies to help the reader think through guilt or innocence and come to a verdict. Each new analogy or example is more interesting and thought provoking than the last.
Cathcart does use some of his usual techniques (e.g., in Plato and the Platypus) like brief historical notes on influential philosophers and a light tongue-in-cheek narrative style though for the most part he keeps his usual bad jokes in check. Overall, The Trolley Problem is a short, stimulating book presented through an imaginative structure, the trial.
So why my headache? The book's examples are so plentiful and so mind bending that by the end I wasn't sure what I believe. I was continually caught between on the one hand, on the other. And by the end, I thought if I faced a runaway trolley, I might stand there frozen while I endlessly weighed my options.
In a strange way, it's a good headache to suffer because I learned a lot, but that said, it might not go away for awhile. And when it does, perhaps I'll read David Edmunds' Would You Kill the Fat Man?, another exploration of the trolley problem, just to stimulate my thinking some more and probably start the headache process all over again.
As the author Cathcart notes, the trolley problem has been explored thoroughly for years, perhaps most popularly by Michael Sandel (see his book Justice). So what's new with this book?
Cathcart employs a clever device, a trial complete with prosecutor, defense attorney, psychologist, clergy member, judge, and jury. Through the many voices, the book explores the various ways to consider the trolley problem, and the book presents numerous analogies to help the reader think through guilt or innocence and come to a verdict. Each new analogy or example is more interesting and thought provoking than the last.
Cathcart does use some of his usual techniques (e.g., in Plato and the Platypus) like brief historical notes on influential philosophers and a light tongue-in-cheek narrative style though for the most part he keeps his usual bad jokes in check. Overall, The Trolley Problem is a short, stimulating book presented through an imaginative structure, the trial.
So why my headache? The book's examples are so plentiful and so mind bending that by the end I wasn't sure what I believe. I was continually caught between on the one hand, on the other. And by the end, I thought if I faced a runaway trolley, I might stand there frozen while I endlessly weighed my options.
In a strange way, it's a good headache to suffer because I learned a lot, but that said, it might not go away for awhile. And when it does, perhaps I'll read David Edmunds' Would You Kill the Fat Man?, another exploration of the trolley problem, just to stimulate my thinking some more and probably start the headache process all over again.
January 22, 2019
A good idea undone by mediocre execution.
I’m intrigued by the concept of looking at the well-known trolley problem (issue: is it justifiable to kill one person to save five?) through different thought and academic disciplines, ranging from legal to religious. The problem is that The Trolley Problem continually repeats the same issues and arguments for one hundred pages with little deviation. There’s no nuance, and the legal section, for example, bears very little resemblance to an actual legal argument or how lawyers are taught to think.
Also, this cannot be said enough: Precedents may be like analogies, but they are not analogies, and anyone with legal training who uses the word “analogy” in lieu of “precedent” would probably not be an attorney, because they would probably not pass the bar exam.
A good idea undone by repetition. What this book should have been is an introduction followed by chapters on legal, religious, philosophical, psychological, et al. written by experts from those fields. As is? The sitcom The Good Place did a better job tackling the contours of the philosophy. Not recommended.
I’m intrigued by the concept of looking at the well-known trolley problem (issue: is it justifiable to kill one person to save five?) through different thought and academic disciplines, ranging from legal to religious. The problem is that The Trolley Problem continually repeats the same issues and arguments for one hundred pages with little deviation. There’s no nuance, and the legal section, for example, bears very little resemblance to an actual legal argument or how lawyers are taught to think.
Also, this cannot be said enough: Precedents may be like analogies, but they are not analogies, and anyone with legal training who uses the word “analogy” in lieu of “precedent” would probably not be an attorney, because they would probably not pass the bar exam.
A good idea undone by repetition. What this book should have been is an introduction followed by chapters on legal, religious, philosophical, psychological, et al. written by experts from those fields. As is? The sitcom The Good Place did a better job tackling the contours of the philosophy. Not recommended.
May 27, 2014
This book reads more like a compilation of different perspectives, but I think it works great. I like the fact that it doesn't really matter if you think Daphne is guilty or not, is all about your argument and well and compelling you can make it. Is about highlighting the flaws in the opposite arguments and using that in contrast to the strengths of yours. We use sound logic to justify certain actions and shy away from that same logic in other situation just because it doesn't suit our interest.
What I think and what I would do vary under different conditions and with different variables. I personally think that being present makes you a part of the puzzle and the argument of playing God goes out the window, the fact that you're put in a position to even have the option to play God is an element that can't be overlooked.
Interesting discussion indeed.
What I think and what I would do vary under different conditions and with different variables. I personally think that being present makes you a part of the puzzle and the argument of playing God goes out the window, the fact that you're put in a position to even have the option to play God is an element that can't be overlooked.
Interesting discussion indeed.
November 25, 2013
A great read for anyone who loves stretching closely held beliefs or ways of reasoning/rationalizing on which you lean to wade through murky ethical or moral challenges. I found that the Utilitarianism Philosophy, as it was presented in this book, really resonates with me, for better or for worse. Anyway, I give this book five stars because it's engaging, accessible and caused me to stretch my thinking.
April 30, 2021
while philosophy is extremely pretentious, this book is fun read that makes me love the subject even more
December 31, 2013
In the November 24, 2013 issue of The New York Times Book Review, I read a review of two books dealing with an ethical, moral and philosophical issue that has become known as the Trolley Problem. The issue basically is the following situation: a trolley car is speeding unchecked along the main track. Ahead, also on the main track, are five people. Unable to stop, the trolley with hit and kill all five. However, there is a side track the trolley can be diverted onto. Unfortunately, there is a person also on the side track who will be killed if the trolley is diverted. The question is whether the trolley should be diverted killing the one person in order to save the five. The two books reviewed were: Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us About Right and Wrong by David Edmonds and The Trolley Problem: Or, Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge? A Philosophical Conundrum by Thomas Cathcart.
After reading the review, I thought both of these books would make for interesting reading. On December 3, while in Springfield MO, I stopped at the Barnes and Noble there and purchased both books. I finished reading Cathcart’s book about a week ago.
Thomas Cathcart is an author of several philosophical works co-written with David Klein that attempt to make some of the major ideas of philosophy clear to general readers. His three previous books, written with Klein, are interesting and have wonderfully provocative titles: Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar…Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes, Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington: Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes, and Heidegger and a Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates: Using Philosophy (and Jokes!) to Explore Life, Death, the Afterlife, and Everything in Between. The Trolley Problem: Or, Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge? A Philosophical Conundrum is Cathcart first solely written book. As with the previous three volumes, the book is relatively short and fast reading.
In The Trolley Problem: Or, Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge? A Philosophical Conundrum, Cathcart takes on the trolley problem and its various variations in the form of reporting a court case with the Court being the Court of Public Opinion. The initial problem is as I first explained in which a person on the trolley throws the switch to go onto the side track, thus killing the one man in favor of the other five. The book opens, following Cathcart’s prologue (in which he provides the history of the problem), with a newspaper account saying the woman has been charged with manslaughter. Then the police report is given. The trial is presented with the jury instructions by the chief bailiff, the prosecutor’s summary statement, concluded by the defense attorney’s closing statement. In these we are given the basic facts of the original case, but also some variations. The prosecutor presents a second case in which following an accident in which five people were seriously hurt and needing various organ transplants while a sixth person was uninjured, a doctor removes the organs from the sixth person, transplants them into the other five, thus saving all five. Unfortunately, the sixth person subsequently dies. The prosecutor argues that this was not morally justified. The defense attorney then presents a case in which a man is standing on a bridge and sees a runaway trolley heading toward five people farther down the track. The trolley will hit and kill all five. However, it can be stopped if a suitably heavy mass can be thrown in front of it. Unfortunately, the only object heavy enough is a large fat man standing next to him. Is it morally justifiable to sacrifice the fat man to save the other five? This is the best known version of this issue. Following these court statements are a faculty colloquium, a philosophy class lecture (which argues when analogies are useful or not), a psychological analysis, an amicus curiae brief, and a debate on NPR. The book concludes with the jury instructions from the judge, the jury deliberations and an epilogue. As I wrote earlier, this is a very fast read, but extremely fascinating. Cathcart presents both sides well delving into issues of utilitarianism, consequentialism, issues of both human and personal rights, the permissibility of performing acts that have both good and bad effects (Aquinas’s Principle of the Double Effect), and several other issues. The format Cathcart uses makes the discussion relevant and interesting.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in ethics, morality or even philosophy in a modern context. Of particular interest was a survey done several years ago in which the people surveyed voted on whether they thought the choices made were correct. In the original case (switching tracks), 88% of the people thought that the choice made to switch tracks was morally correct. However, in the case of throwing the fat man off the bridge, only 11% thought it was morally defensible. What is different about these two cases? The basic facts are the same: sacrifice one to save five. Read the book, and if it doesn’t completely answer the question, it will give you a lot to ponder.
After reading the review, I thought both of these books would make for interesting reading. On December 3, while in Springfield MO, I stopped at the Barnes and Noble there and purchased both books. I finished reading Cathcart’s book about a week ago.
Thomas Cathcart is an author of several philosophical works co-written with David Klein that attempt to make some of the major ideas of philosophy clear to general readers. His three previous books, written with Klein, are interesting and have wonderfully provocative titles: Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar…Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes, Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington: Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes, and Heidegger and a Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates: Using Philosophy (and Jokes!) to Explore Life, Death, the Afterlife, and Everything in Between. The Trolley Problem: Or, Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge? A Philosophical Conundrum is Cathcart first solely written book. As with the previous three volumes, the book is relatively short and fast reading.
In The Trolley Problem: Or, Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge? A Philosophical Conundrum, Cathcart takes on the trolley problem and its various variations in the form of reporting a court case with the Court being the Court of Public Opinion. The initial problem is as I first explained in which a person on the trolley throws the switch to go onto the side track, thus killing the one man in favor of the other five. The book opens, following Cathcart’s prologue (in which he provides the history of the problem), with a newspaper account saying the woman has been charged with manslaughter. Then the police report is given. The trial is presented with the jury instructions by the chief bailiff, the prosecutor’s summary statement, concluded by the defense attorney’s closing statement. In these we are given the basic facts of the original case, but also some variations. The prosecutor presents a second case in which following an accident in which five people were seriously hurt and needing various organ transplants while a sixth person was uninjured, a doctor removes the organs from the sixth person, transplants them into the other five, thus saving all five. Unfortunately, the sixth person subsequently dies. The prosecutor argues that this was not morally justified. The defense attorney then presents a case in which a man is standing on a bridge and sees a runaway trolley heading toward five people farther down the track. The trolley will hit and kill all five. However, it can be stopped if a suitably heavy mass can be thrown in front of it. Unfortunately, the only object heavy enough is a large fat man standing next to him. Is it morally justifiable to sacrifice the fat man to save the other five? This is the best known version of this issue. Following these court statements are a faculty colloquium, a philosophy class lecture (which argues when analogies are useful or not), a psychological analysis, an amicus curiae brief, and a debate on NPR. The book concludes with the jury instructions from the judge, the jury deliberations and an epilogue. As I wrote earlier, this is a very fast read, but extremely fascinating. Cathcart presents both sides well delving into issues of utilitarianism, consequentialism, issues of both human and personal rights, the permissibility of performing acts that have both good and bad effects (Aquinas’s Principle of the Double Effect), and several other issues. The format Cathcart uses makes the discussion relevant and interesting.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in ethics, morality or even philosophy in a modern context. Of particular interest was a survey done several years ago in which the people surveyed voted on whether they thought the choices made were correct. In the original case (switching tracks), 88% of the people thought that the choice made to switch tracks was morally correct. However, in the case of throwing the fat man off the bridge, only 11% thought it was morally defensible. What is different about these two cases? The basic facts are the same: sacrifice one to save five. Read the book, and if it doesn’t completely answer the question, it will give you a lot to ponder.
May 21, 2020
Herhangi bir zaman diliminde, herhangi bir olayla ilgili binlerce farklı bakış açısı vardır ve “doğru”nun tanımı duygular/mantık ikileminden hareketle yapılmamalıdır!
December 17, 2023
Boring concept for an interesting philosophical problem...
February 25, 2014
I never knew about the Trolley problem until I read this book and didn't know how involved people really were with this conundrum. The Trolley story is one that everyone can relate to in someway because it deals with the moral and ethical issue of one person's action against another or a group of people.
The problem consists of whether someone, when put into a situation of action, should decide on the fate of a group of people or a single person. What I really enjoyed about the structure of this problem was how the author put everything into perspective by outlining in terms of a real court room drama. By structuring the book in a manner that goes from court room litigation to article in a newspaper to discussions in the news and radio you begin to see how complex philosophy problems can get and what lawyers and jurors must deal with on a daily basis.
Instead of providing my opinion of what should happen to the lady, I would rather explain the importance of why more people need to read books like this. Good reasoning is hard to come by, if you do not know how to look at a problem correctly and break it down into different components and view them each with different perspectives, then how you will know that you understand the problem completely?
The arguments laid out in this book provide valid and invalid reasons for how to look at such a problem. Reading this book I, no doubt, figured that there are many people who started off not guilty only to change to guilty and back again because some of the arguments given sounded solid. This is why it's important to improve your reasoning skills because if you can be easily swayed by an argument that is meant to throw you offer, what other things are you falling for in life that other people have made sound convincing?
Reasoning and arguing are an art and craft that must be fine tuned all the time. Books like this help keep your mind sharp in what to pay attention to when dealing with such a case and what to ignore. A simple problem as someone deciding the fate of others because she happened to be in one place at the wrong/right time can be turned into a very complicated issue when additional variables are added, but why is that important to understand or know? Because that is what jurors do every time they deliberate on a case, they bring in their own point of view about the case into the picture. If one person argues that the lady made her choice because she had no relationship to the person then she might be found innocent on the basis she had no motivated actions or the throwing of the switch, which involves no physical touching of the individuals involved allows her to mentally disconnect of any emotional involvement with the people.
If you are looking for a book to help fine tune your reasoning abilities this little story will help show you the many different ways of how to look at a problem. It opens your mind to approaching a problem with a different perspective that sheds light on a area that may or may not be important. When you fine tune your thinking skills, it's harder for people to pull a fast one on you, and that's better than being the sucker who's born every minute.
The problem consists of whether someone, when put into a situation of action, should decide on the fate of a group of people or a single person. What I really enjoyed about the structure of this problem was how the author put everything into perspective by outlining in terms of a real court room drama. By structuring the book in a manner that goes from court room litigation to article in a newspaper to discussions in the news and radio you begin to see how complex philosophy problems can get and what lawyers and jurors must deal with on a daily basis.
Instead of providing my opinion of what should happen to the lady, I would rather explain the importance of why more people need to read books like this. Good reasoning is hard to come by, if you do not know how to look at a problem correctly and break it down into different components and view them each with different perspectives, then how you will know that you understand the problem completely?
The arguments laid out in this book provide valid and invalid reasons for how to look at such a problem. Reading this book I, no doubt, figured that there are many people who started off not guilty only to change to guilty and back again because some of the arguments given sounded solid. This is why it's important to improve your reasoning skills because if you can be easily swayed by an argument that is meant to throw you offer, what other things are you falling for in life that other people have made sound convincing?
Reasoning and arguing are an art and craft that must be fine tuned all the time. Books like this help keep your mind sharp in what to pay attention to when dealing with such a case and what to ignore. A simple problem as someone deciding the fate of others because she happened to be in one place at the wrong/right time can be turned into a very complicated issue when additional variables are added, but why is that important to understand or know? Because that is what jurors do every time they deliberate on a case, they bring in their own point of view about the case into the picture. If one person argues that the lady made her choice because she had no relationship to the person then she might be found innocent on the basis she had no motivated actions or the throwing of the switch, which involves no physical touching of the individuals involved allows her to mentally disconnect of any emotional involvement with the people.
If you are looking for a book to help fine tune your reasoning abilities this little story will help show you the many different ways of how to look at a problem. It opens your mind to approaching a problem with a different perspective that sheds light on a area that may or may not be important. When you fine tune your thinking skills, it's harder for people to pull a fast one on you, and that's better than being the sucker who's born every minute.
July 16, 2016
after talking about decision making and responsability with one of my friends -16 years old teenager- he suggested me a book: The Trolley Problem by Thomas Cathcart. (i wish i would read books like these at the age of 16!)
he actually prescribed it to me. yes, doctor E., i will take my book medicine! – i promised him.
so did i and here i am, finding this book worth of reviewing it, but before i actually do that, let me add a short comment: this book and the theory behind is mind blow!
the main idea behind the whole complex problem is quite simple and was developed by british philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967. something went wrong and our tram driver can’t stop for sure the vehicle he is driving. on the main track, where the tram is heading forwards are five workers. the driver has to possibilities: do nothing –by this killing the five workers, who can’t get off the track – or, steer the track to the right, where on the secondary line we have only one worker. the main question is: would you steer and give up the life of one, in order to save the five (utilitarianism) or you wouldn’t play God and just let everything ongoing, killing the five workers on the main line?!
it’s an ethical question that is to be stressed out by this imaginary experiment.
the result of this attempt was what we call today trolleyology. trolleyologist kept going further by adding elements to this story, or inventing new ones with different circumstances.
you may feel that this trolleyology is something like scholasticism did, by asking hair splitting questions like: how many angels can dance on a pin? by adding new elements and new stories, the moral problem actually gets more complicated, but also helps to take better decisions (hopefully).
for example, in 1985 philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson changed the plot a little, inviting us to add an element to the story. let’s imagine the same story, without a tram driver, but with a switch standing near you. you can change the tram from one line to the other one – what do you decide as an outsider who has no professional responsibility? You let fate make it’s course or kill one worker in order to save five others? and what if there is no switch and you realize that the only way stopping the tram is to throw a heavy weight in front of the tram – but you only have a very fat guy who you can push from a bridge in front of the tram: by this killing the fat guy, but sparing the life of the others. results show that you would not push and kill the fat guy in order to save the others, but you would steer or change the switch from the main line and kill the one worker versus the five. it’s killing in both cases, but do you see umber between the stories and decisions?
in his book, thomas cathcart enlightened the case from many other aspects: what would an altruist ultra-christian say about the case, or how would a Kant-fan philosophy teacher comment this, or what would the church say, what would lay people think about it and so one.
this book was a great subscription.
you should also read it, no matter the profession you have.
he actually prescribed it to me. yes, doctor E., i will take my book medicine! – i promised him.
so did i and here i am, finding this book worth of reviewing it, but before i actually do that, let me add a short comment: this book and the theory behind is mind blow!
the main idea behind the whole complex problem is quite simple and was developed by british philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967. something went wrong and our tram driver can’t stop for sure the vehicle he is driving. on the main track, where the tram is heading forwards are five workers. the driver has to possibilities: do nothing –by this killing the five workers, who can’t get off the track – or, steer the track to the right, where on the secondary line we have only one worker. the main question is: would you steer and give up the life of one, in order to save the five (utilitarianism) or you wouldn’t play God and just let everything ongoing, killing the five workers on the main line?!
it’s an ethical question that is to be stressed out by this imaginary experiment.
the result of this attempt was what we call today trolleyology. trolleyologist kept going further by adding elements to this story, or inventing new ones with different circumstances.
you may feel that this trolleyology is something like scholasticism did, by asking hair splitting questions like: how many angels can dance on a pin? by adding new elements and new stories, the moral problem actually gets more complicated, but also helps to take better decisions (hopefully).
for example, in 1985 philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson changed the plot a little, inviting us to add an element to the story. let’s imagine the same story, without a tram driver, but with a switch standing near you. you can change the tram from one line to the other one – what do you decide as an outsider who has no professional responsibility? You let fate make it’s course or kill one worker in order to save five others? and what if there is no switch and you realize that the only way stopping the tram is to throw a heavy weight in front of the tram – but you only have a very fat guy who you can push from a bridge in front of the tram: by this killing the fat guy, but sparing the life of the others. results show that you would not push and kill the fat guy in order to save the others, but you would steer or change the switch from the main line and kill the one worker versus the five. it’s killing in both cases, but do you see umber between the stories and decisions?
in his book, thomas cathcart enlightened the case from many other aspects: what would an altruist ultra-christian say about the case, or how would a Kant-fan philosophy teacher comment this, or what would the church say, what would lay people think about it and so one.
this book was a great subscription.
you should also read it, no matter the profession you have.
January 16, 2021
This is one of the best philosophy books that I have ever read! As one of my degrees is in Philosophy please know that I have more than a few others to compare it to.
For some reason, two books I have read recently referenced the ethical question of The Trolley Problem. For those unfamiliar, the question is roughly: There is a runaway trolley car and five people walking on the track. You are standing near a lever that you can pull that will send the trolley car onto a siding where there is one person walking on the tracks. Do you pull the lever probably killing the one but saving the five?
In his book, Thomas Cathcart imagines that a woman in San Francisco has actually been in the situation and pulled the lever. She gets thanked by the city and, of course, the five survivors, but is then brought up on manslaughter charges in “the court of public opinion”. Via a hypothetical trial, a class in critical thinking, an article in a Psychology magazine, a report by the Conference of U.S. Catholic Bishops, a college faculty room discussion, a call in show on NPR, and finally a jury deliberation room Cathcart looks at this ethical dilemma from every different angle.
While this is not a “scholarly tome”, Cathcart manages to introduce the reader to a who’s who of ethical philosophers. After mentioning them in the text, Cathcart inserts a page about each of ethicists to give the reader more information. In this way he brings in Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, St. Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, G. E. Moore, Peter Singer, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Niccolo Machiavelli.
Saturday Night Live’s Father Guido Sarducci used to teach all that an average college graduate needs to learn in his Five Minute University. In The Trolley Problem, Cathcart gives a semester long course on Ethics in less than a hundred pages. This book is entertaining, educational, and it will definitely give you a tremendous amount to think about.
For some reason, two books I have read recently referenced the ethical question of The Trolley Problem. For those unfamiliar, the question is roughly: There is a runaway trolley car and five people walking on the track. You are standing near a lever that you can pull that will send the trolley car onto a siding where there is one person walking on the tracks. Do you pull the lever probably killing the one but saving the five?
In his book, Thomas Cathcart imagines that a woman in San Francisco has actually been in the situation and pulled the lever. She gets thanked by the city and, of course, the five survivors, but is then brought up on manslaughter charges in “the court of public opinion”. Via a hypothetical trial, a class in critical thinking, an article in a Psychology magazine, a report by the Conference of U.S. Catholic Bishops, a college faculty room discussion, a call in show on NPR, and finally a jury deliberation room Cathcart looks at this ethical dilemma from every different angle.
While this is not a “scholarly tome”, Cathcart manages to introduce the reader to a who’s who of ethical philosophers. After mentioning them in the text, Cathcart inserts a page about each of ethicists to give the reader more information. In this way he brings in Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, St. Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, G. E. Moore, Peter Singer, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Niccolo Machiavelli.
Saturday Night Live’s Father Guido Sarducci used to teach all that an average college graduate needs to learn in his Five Minute University. In The Trolley Problem, Cathcart gives a semester long course on Ethics in less than a hundred pages. This book is entertaining, educational, and it will definitely give you a tremendous amount to think about.
September 25, 2015
If there is anything this author is good at, it's making the concept of the trolley problem and "trolleyology" extremely interesting. Previously, I've had exposure to the problem, but lacked interest. Cathcart makes the problem extremely interesting within the first few pages.
I believe that Cathcart's primary goal is to deliver the problem in such a way that readers are able to deeply think about the problem and form their own opinions about it. It's a nice concept, and Cathcart definitely delivers information in an unbiased fashion. However, his execution makes things a little tough for the reader.
Cathcart explains the concepts of the trolley problem using a fictitious court case and its effects on the surrounding world (classrooms, workplaces, etc.) The fact that all of this is fictitious, however, is never made clear. Because of that, the reader is left to believe that they are reading a summary of an actual historical recount. This, of course, is interesting in its own right. However, it poses a problem when thinking about the problem itself. The reader, thinking the events actually occurred, reads the book more like a suspenseful story instead of a thought-provoking problem. It isn't until the end, when the outcome of the court case is discussed, that the reader realizes that they should have been forming thoughts and opinions about the problem during the story.
Nonetheless, the topic overall is fairly thought-provoking, and after the book is set down, the reader still has the rest of time to sit and become a free-time trolleyologist. The book was quick and enjoyable and may ultimately lead the reader to question their own viewpoints.
I believe that Cathcart's primary goal is to deliver the problem in such a way that readers are able to deeply think about the problem and form their own opinions about it. It's a nice concept, and Cathcart definitely delivers information in an unbiased fashion. However, his execution makes things a little tough for the reader.
Cathcart explains the concepts of the trolley problem using a fictitious court case and its effects on the surrounding world (classrooms, workplaces, etc.) The fact that all of this is fictitious, however, is never made clear. Because of that, the reader is left to believe that they are reading a summary of an actual historical recount. This, of course, is interesting in its own right. However, it poses a problem when thinking about the problem itself. The reader, thinking the events actually occurred, reads the book more like a suspenseful story instead of a thought-provoking problem. It isn't until the end, when the outcome of the court case is discussed, that the reader realizes that they should have been forming thoughts and opinions about the problem during the story.
Nonetheless, the topic overall is fairly thought-provoking, and after the book is set down, the reader still has the rest of time to sit and become a free-time trolleyologist. The book was quick and enjoyable and may ultimately lead the reader to question their own viewpoints.
February 19, 2014
Well this is the first in a battery of books I have received from the University in the fields of science, environment, social studies and health, and plan to read over the course of the year.
So that being said, for a quick read on the moral/ethical landscape of the needs of the few versus the needs of the many this book was okay. The book is structured in such a way that the "trolley problem" (killing one to save five) is framed as some sort of fictional (although never explicitly stated) court drama. Proceeding through the "court of public opinion" various field-experts expound on aspects of the problem (e.g. academic, lay, religious, and historic philosophers, etc.) to provide the reader with a jump-off for addressing the topic at hand. I found the whole structure confusing and a distracting, and not even a great vehicle for showcasing a variety of perspectives.
So yeah, a mediocre start to my year of free "science books".
So that being said, for a quick read on the moral/ethical landscape of the needs of the few versus the needs of the many this book was okay. The book is structured in such a way that the "trolley problem" (killing one to save five) is framed as some sort of fictional (although never explicitly stated) court drama. Proceeding through the "court of public opinion" various field-experts expound on aspects of the problem (e.g. academic, lay, religious, and historic philosophers, etc.) to provide the reader with a jump-off for addressing the topic at hand. I found the whole structure confusing and a distracting, and not even a great vehicle for showcasing a variety of perspectives.
So yeah, a mediocre start to my year of free "science books".
June 9, 2015
Thoughtful and thought provoking (and fun!) investigation of the classic trolley problem, which, briefly, asks whether it's morally acceptable to perform an act that would result in the death of one person but would save five people. Yes, chances are excellent that you'll never have to make a moral decision about an errant trolley, but every day we do make decisions that have mixed results, or such decisions are made in our name. Think of drones and what's euphemistically called "collateral damage," tax cuts that benefit some citizens but deprive other citizens of basic services, or church decisions about gay marriage that prevent certain committed couples from forming sanctioned relationships. Economics, whether household or international, is the science of scarcity, which of necessity means choosing one thing but denying another, often with moral implications. Thomas Cathcart's lively book helps us understand and sharpen the tools we use to make moral decisions.
June 6, 2014
This popular account uses the engaging device of a trial where we are all jurors in "the Court of Public Opinion" to examine the "trolleyology" scenario with variations, and how/why we actually make ethical decisions. What is the role of emotion in our decisions? Should there be one?
The book is somewhat slanted toward introductory versions of various philosophical schools, and does not treat the subject in as much depth as Would You Kill the Fat Man?: The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and Wrong
The book is somewhat slanted toward introductory versions of various philosophical schools, and does not treat the subject in as much depth as Would You Kill the Fat Man?: The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and Wrong
December 15, 2014
The book takes a famous philosophical conundrum and presents it as a court case. We hear the prosecution's argument, defence's argument, and perspectives from various other people (e.g. bishop - religious viewpoint, professor - intellectual viewpoint, etc). The presentation format was interesting yet practical. Language was also very concise and easy to understand.
At the end of the book, the jury delivers its verdict, and we also get to read each juror's individual thoughts on the case, which is once again interesting because we have a myriad of people coming from different jobs and therefore looking at things from different angles (e.g. ex-military man, nurse, artist, etc). The epilogue was also wonderfully delivered.
This is a great book for non-Philosophy students.
At the end of the book, the jury delivers its verdict, and we also get to read each juror's individual thoughts on the case, which is once again interesting because we have a myriad of people coming from different jobs and therefore looking at things from different angles (e.g. ex-military man, nurse, artist, etc). The epilogue was also wonderfully delivered.
This is a great book for non-Philosophy students.
October 7, 2015
The Trolley Problem or, Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge, was an exercise in thinking. Oh, geesh, I know books are supposed to be entertaining. Well, The Trolley Problem was entertaining, too, and it makes one think of impossible situations you might get into and how you would make a decision you think is morally correct. Think of the Syrian Refugee Crisis.
Here's a moral dilemma from the book. "A trolley is careering out of control. Up ahead are five workers; on a spot to the right stands a lone individual. Do you, the driver, plow into the five, or veer off to sacrifice the one?"
There are many variations of this theme in the book, but it really makes you think? Morality is not black and white, is my conclusion.
Here's a moral dilemma from the book. "A trolley is careering out of control. Up ahead are five workers; on a spot to the right stands a lone individual. Do you, the driver, plow into the five, or veer off to sacrifice the one?"
There are many variations of this theme in the book, but it really makes you think? Morality is not black and white, is my conclusion.
April 1, 2014
The aim of the book is to get you to start thinking critically about the moral stances you take and the justifications you concoct for your actions...and inaction. As an introduction to critical thinking, I think it is very successful. I was introduced to a few new concepts (for me), such as the dangers of argument from analogy and I was comforted that even an extreme altruist like Peter Singer seems okay with drawing the line somewhere. I feel a little less upset that I'm surrounded by moral ambiguity after having read this book. The important thing is not possessing the truth so much as having the ability to understand why we feel the way we do.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews