What do you think?
Rate this book
Would You Kill the Fat Man?: The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and Wrong
From the bestselling coauthor of Wittgenstein's Poker, a fascinating tour through the history of moral philosophyA runaway train is racing toward five men who are tied to the track. Unless the train is stopped, it will inevitably kill all five men. You are standing on a footbridge looking down on the unfolding disaster. However, a fat man, a stranger, is standing next to if you push him off the bridge, he will topple onto the line and, although he will die, his chunky body will stop the train, saving five lives. Would you kill the fat man?The question may seem bizarre. But it's one variation of a puzzle that has baffled moral philosophers for almost half a century and that more recently has come to preoccupy neuroscientists, psychologists, and other thinkers as well. In this book, David Edmonds, coauthor of the bestselling Wittgenstein's Poker, tells the riveting story of why and how philosophers have struggled with this ethical dilemma, sometimes called the trolley problem. In the process, he provides an entertaining and informative tour through the history of moral philosophy. Most people feel it's wrong to kill the fat man. But why? After all, in taking one life you could save five. As Edmonds shows, answering the question is far more complex—and important—than it first appears. In fact, how we answer it tells us a great deal about right and wrong.
228 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 6, 2013
206 people are currently reading
2449 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 224 reviews
September 24, 2022
Would You Kill the Fat Man?
By David Edmonds
I don't know where I was in college but I had never heard of the Trolley problem. When I read this title and was intrigued. When I was reading it I found the book more than philosophy, it has history and science in it too! The debate on this problem and others are discussed and many different philosophers' points or opinions on each problem is discussed. Each varies in how they solve the problem. As the book goes through history, similar problems occur in real life. The different philosopher's views would be weighed on each situation. An interesting walk through time.
Then the scientists who can change a persons view on just about everything from sex, acceptance of others, and more. How hormones, chemicals, and medicines effect our brain. Injuries or disease too!
I found this book very interesting and intriguing. Some of the questions or situations are very strange but makes people think!
No, I would not kill the Fat man. Sorry.
By David Edmonds
I don't know where I was in college but I had never heard of the Trolley problem. When I read this title and was intrigued. When I was reading it I found the book more than philosophy, it has history and science in it too! The debate on this problem and others are discussed and many different philosophers' points or opinions on each problem is discussed. Each varies in how they solve the problem. As the book goes through history, similar problems occur in real life. The different philosopher's views would be weighed on each situation. An interesting walk through time.
Then the scientists who can change a persons view on just about everything from sex, acceptance of others, and more. How hormones, chemicals, and medicines effect our brain. Injuries or disease too!
I found this book very interesting and intriguing. Some of the questions or situations are very strange but makes people think!
No, I would not kill the Fat man. Sorry.
June 28, 2022
Trolley Theory explained, tested and twisted
January 14, 2014
Wow! What a surprisingly good book! Seriously: this book is totally doable for anyone and everyone. I've never read a scientific nonfiction book that was written in such a way as to be so accessible to anyone, even those of us (ahem) without advanced science degrees!
Here's the trolley problem that is at the core of this intriguing book: You are standing on a footbridge over a railroad track. There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing next to a fat man. If you push the fat man off the footbridge, his girth will stop the trolley, thus saving five lives, but killing the fat man. If you do nothing, the trolley will hit the five people tied to the tracks, killing them all, but saving the fat man. What do you do?
Well? What would you do? I read this book last week and I'm still not sure of what I would do in this situation. And if you read the book, you'll be presented with many more variations on the scenario. It's all so fascinating! The author presents all the different scenarios with illustrated diagrams, so it's all clear and easy to understand your choices. It's just hard to choose!
Speaking of choosing: there's no "right" answer. This is a book on philosophy. There's no easy way to determine the correct action. Isn't that just frustrating as all get-out?
David Edmonds does such a SUPERB job in his presentation of this part of philosophy. Not only does he present the information in such a way as to be appealing and understandable to the general public, but he supplements it with the history behind the posing of the question and the modern scientific test being done on the subject. (For instance, did you know that people are more like to be monetarily generous to a stranger after eating cheese? Yup; you'll get to that near the end of the book.)
I highly recommend this book to everyone!
Here's the trolley problem that is at the core of this intriguing book: You are standing on a footbridge over a railroad track. There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing next to a fat man. If you push the fat man off the footbridge, his girth will stop the trolley, thus saving five lives, but killing the fat man. If you do nothing, the trolley will hit the five people tied to the tracks, killing them all, but saving the fat man. What do you do?
Well? What would you do? I read this book last week and I'm still not sure of what I would do in this situation. And if you read the book, you'll be presented with many more variations on the scenario. It's all so fascinating! The author presents all the different scenarios with illustrated diagrams, so it's all clear and easy to understand your choices. It's just hard to choose!
Speaking of choosing: there's no "right" answer. This is a book on philosophy. There's no easy way to determine the correct action. Isn't that just frustrating as all get-out?
David Edmonds does such a SUPERB job in his presentation of this part of philosophy. Not only does he present the information in such a way as to be appealing and understandable to the general public, but he supplements it with the history behind the posing of the question and the modern scientific test being done on the subject. (For instance, did you know that people are more like to be monetarily generous to a stranger after eating cheese? Yup; you'll get to that near the end of the book.)
I highly recommend this book to everyone!
August 26, 2023
This book is really a philosophy book. It looks at a famous moral dilemma known as the "trolley problem" and a slew of variations on that theme. It delves into the history of the problem and how different people and groups of people respond to it. Essentially, some people are utilitarian - - people who try to maximize the welfare of the greatest number of people. But while that sounds simple and sensible, the trolley problem demonstrates that it's anything but . . . and that in many circumstances, people disagree with this basic rule of thumb.
All in all, I personally enjoyed the book - - it was well written and addressed a narrow problem in a deep way. But I like philosophy and thinking about morality. So if that's not up your alley, this book won't be either.
All in all, I personally enjoyed the book - - it was well written and addressed a narrow problem in a deep way. But I like philosophy and thinking about morality. So if that's not up your alley, this book won't be either.
March 30, 2016
Avendo sposato da tempo il “credo” neopositivista tendo a non apprezzare troppo la filosofia morale e a non interessarmene quanto dovrei. La lettura di questo brillante saggio di David Edmonds, filosofo e radio-divulgatore di filosofia, è stato una buona occasione per correggere il tiro e re-imparare a discutere di etica, come quando ero al liceo e con i compagni di classe dibattevamo di Spinoza e di imperativi kantiani. Una buona occasione non solo per l’argomento in sé, molto stimolante, ma anche per lo stile dell’autore, che risulta scorrevole e leggero, senza essere mai superficiale, e ironico e spiritoso senza esagerare.
Il cosiddetto problema del carrello (trolley) è ben noto in etica e riguarda il concetto di “male minore”: in una situazione ipotetica ogni decisione possibile ha un esito negativo e sta a noi scegliere se e come minimizzare i danni. Il problema ha dato origine a una vera e propria sottodisciplina, nota come trolleyology, i cui esperti hanno costruito una ricchissima serie di versioni, volte a evidenziare un aspetto oppure l’altro. Edmonds illustra, con l’aiuto di figure, una decina di problemi del carrello, ma due sono i principali: il Ramo Deviato e l’Uomo Grasso. Nel primo un vagone ferroviario sta per investire (e uccidere) cinque persone legate sui suoi binari, ma possiamo deviarlo su un ramo secondario, dove però investirà (e ucciderà) certamente una persona, anch’essa legata ai binari. Nel secondo al posto del ramo secondario c’è un cavalcavia sui binari, sul quale ci troviamo insieme a un uomo molto grasso: spingendo giù dal parapetto quest’ultimo, egli bloccherà il treno salvando i cinque a prezzo però della sua vita. La domanda in entrambi i casi è duplice: “possiamo” intervenire causando la morte di un individuo per salvarne altri oppure “dobbiamo” intervenire? La nostra è una scelta morale o un obbligo morale? La cosa sorprendente è che la maggior parte delle persone alle quali si pone il problema tende a reagire in maniera differente nei due casi: sembra infatti che deviare il carrello su un ramo secondario sia eticamente più accettabile che non spingere dal parapetto il grassone.
Altro fatto abbastanza affascinante è l’enorme gamma di situazioni realistiche e reali alle quali il problema è applicabile, a sottolinearne l’importanza filosofica. Il Ramo Deviato è nato nel 1967 dalla fantasia della filosofa Philippa Foot (1920-2010) - di cui Edmonds fornisce un analitico ritratto biografico - mentre l’Uomo Grasso dalle riflessioni di un’altra filosofa, Judith Jarvis Thomson (1929): entrambe intendevano discutere la legittimità dell’aborto, ma il problema del carrello può servire a esemplificare dilemmi riguardanti la politica (è eticamente accettabile reprimere una rivolta sociale per garantire l’incolumità della popolazione?), le operazioni di polizia (torturare un sospettato per impedire un attentato o liberare un sequestrato), le operazioni militari (accettare vittime civili pur di distruggere una postazione militare), la medicina (lasciar morire un individuo sano per trapiantarne gli organi e salvare altre vite), i tabù sociali (il cannibalismo) etc. Edmonds è molto bravo a farci capire che il problema del carrello è tutt’altro che uno sterile esercizio mentale, e che cercare una possibile soluzione interrogandoci sulla sua legittimità significa applicare la filosofia a situazioni realistiche di enorme importanza per l’umanità.
La prima parte del saggio è dedicata alla presentazione del problema nelle sue varie versioni e all’analisi critica di alcune possibili soluzioni, principalmente riconducibili alla Dottrina del Duplice Effetto di Tommaso d’Aquino, all’utilitarismo di Bentham e alla morale kantiana. Se il problema del carrello è un esperimento immaginario che pertiene al dominio dell’etica, Edmonds spiega e dimostra che si può anche fare ricerca sperimentale in campo filosofico, e in particolare etico: la x-phi (experimental philosophy) è protagonista della seconda parte del libro, insieme alle pesanti critiche di cui è spesso oggetto. La terza parte è dedicata a ciò che le neuroscienze possono dirci sulla nostra capacità di dare risposte etiche, in particolare sulla vexata quaestio del libero arbitrio. La seconda e la terza parte sono quelle che giudico più interessanti, perché in esse la discussione filosofica acquista maggiore concretezza avvicinandosi per quanto è possibile a una ricerca di tipo scientifico. La quarta parte, infine, riguarda le critiche alla sensatezza e all’utilità del problema del carrello. Il saggio si conclude con una breve “carrellata” (mi si perdoni il gioco di parole) sui destini finali dei principali personaggi del libro e con una ricca bibliografia che costituisce un ottimo spunto per proseguire da soli la ricerca.
Edmonds confessa alla fine che lui non sarebbe propenso a spingere l’uomo grasso giù dal parapetto, mentre non avrebbe problemi a deviare il carrello sul ramo secondario. Devo dire che apprezzo e condivido la distinzione tra le due situazioni, che non sono affatto equivalenti: tuttavia, ritengo che agirei in entrambi i casi allo stesso modo, ossia cercando di minimizzare il danno, anche se nel secondo caso il coinvolgimento personale mi creerebbe maggiori rimorsi. Ma avrei potuto agire diversamente?
Consigliato a chi apprezza i dilemmi etici.
Sconsigliato a chi preferisce l’auto al treno.
Il cosiddetto problema del carrello (trolley) è ben noto in etica e riguarda il concetto di “male minore”: in una situazione ipotetica ogni decisione possibile ha un esito negativo e sta a noi scegliere se e come minimizzare i danni. Il problema ha dato origine a una vera e propria sottodisciplina, nota come trolleyology, i cui esperti hanno costruito una ricchissima serie di versioni, volte a evidenziare un aspetto oppure l’altro. Edmonds illustra, con l’aiuto di figure, una decina di problemi del carrello, ma due sono i principali: il Ramo Deviato e l’Uomo Grasso. Nel primo un vagone ferroviario sta per investire (e uccidere) cinque persone legate sui suoi binari, ma possiamo deviarlo su un ramo secondario, dove però investirà (e ucciderà) certamente una persona, anch’essa legata ai binari. Nel secondo al posto del ramo secondario c’è un cavalcavia sui binari, sul quale ci troviamo insieme a un uomo molto grasso: spingendo giù dal parapetto quest’ultimo, egli bloccherà il treno salvando i cinque a prezzo però della sua vita. La domanda in entrambi i casi è duplice: “possiamo” intervenire causando la morte di un individuo per salvarne altri oppure “dobbiamo” intervenire? La nostra è una scelta morale o un obbligo morale? La cosa sorprendente è che la maggior parte delle persone alle quali si pone il problema tende a reagire in maniera differente nei due casi: sembra infatti che deviare il carrello su un ramo secondario sia eticamente più accettabile che non spingere dal parapetto il grassone.
Altro fatto abbastanza affascinante è l’enorme gamma di situazioni realistiche e reali alle quali il problema è applicabile, a sottolinearne l’importanza filosofica. Il Ramo Deviato è nato nel 1967 dalla fantasia della filosofa Philippa Foot (1920-2010) - di cui Edmonds fornisce un analitico ritratto biografico - mentre l’Uomo Grasso dalle riflessioni di un’altra filosofa, Judith Jarvis Thomson (1929): entrambe intendevano discutere la legittimità dell’aborto, ma il problema del carrello può servire a esemplificare dilemmi riguardanti la politica (è eticamente accettabile reprimere una rivolta sociale per garantire l’incolumità della popolazione?), le operazioni di polizia (torturare un sospettato per impedire un attentato o liberare un sequestrato), le operazioni militari (accettare vittime civili pur di distruggere una postazione militare), la medicina (lasciar morire un individuo sano per trapiantarne gli organi e salvare altre vite), i tabù sociali (il cannibalismo) etc. Edmonds è molto bravo a farci capire che il problema del carrello è tutt’altro che uno sterile esercizio mentale, e che cercare una possibile soluzione interrogandoci sulla sua legittimità significa applicare la filosofia a situazioni realistiche di enorme importanza per l’umanità.
La prima parte del saggio è dedicata alla presentazione del problema nelle sue varie versioni e all’analisi critica di alcune possibili soluzioni, principalmente riconducibili alla Dottrina del Duplice Effetto di Tommaso d’Aquino, all’utilitarismo di Bentham e alla morale kantiana. Se il problema del carrello è un esperimento immaginario che pertiene al dominio dell’etica, Edmonds spiega e dimostra che si può anche fare ricerca sperimentale in campo filosofico, e in particolare etico: la x-phi (experimental philosophy) è protagonista della seconda parte del libro, insieme alle pesanti critiche di cui è spesso oggetto. La terza parte è dedicata a ciò che le neuroscienze possono dirci sulla nostra capacità di dare risposte etiche, in particolare sulla vexata quaestio del libero arbitrio. La seconda e la terza parte sono quelle che giudico più interessanti, perché in esse la discussione filosofica acquista maggiore concretezza avvicinandosi per quanto è possibile a una ricerca di tipo scientifico. La quarta parte, infine, riguarda le critiche alla sensatezza e all’utilità del problema del carrello. Il saggio si conclude con una breve “carrellata” (mi si perdoni il gioco di parole) sui destini finali dei principali personaggi del libro e con una ricca bibliografia che costituisce un ottimo spunto per proseguire da soli la ricerca.
Edmonds confessa alla fine che lui non sarebbe propenso a spingere l’uomo grasso giù dal parapetto, mentre non avrebbe problemi a deviare il carrello sul ramo secondario. Devo dire che apprezzo e condivido la distinzione tra le due situazioni, che non sono affatto equivalenti: tuttavia, ritengo che agirei in entrambi i casi allo stesso modo, ossia cercando di minimizzare il danno, anche se nel secondo caso il coinvolgimento personale mi creerebbe maggiori rimorsi. Ma avrei potuto agire diversamente?
Consigliato a chi apprezza i dilemmi etici.
Sconsigliato a chi preferisce l’auto al treno.
July 17, 2014
I'm not a philosophy student and never have been, so I'm approaching this as a member of the general public, and from this perspective it's a well-explained introduction to both trolleyology and to some philosophical history. The scenarios are, naturally, thought-provoking, but what I found most interesting about these thought experiments were the variables affecting the decisions: the effect of the weather, gender, geographical location or even scenario order. The overview wasn't limited to psychological issues either - one chapter covers neuroscientists' views and the changes that brain chemistry or injury can make.
July 14, 2021
this didn’t have any groundbreaking insights but i do like a good trolley problem discussion so i was thoroughly entertained ,, and the sheer volume of trolley problem variations featured in this book was v impressive lmao
January 4, 2014
Really enjoyable little book on the trolley problem. I studied this problem several times while working on my philosophy degree but there was a lot in this book I had never come across - interesting variations and most particularly, the history of the problem.
I definitely preferred the first half of the book over the second. I had hoped for a little bit more of analysis into some of the psychology of the trolley problem. Though, I suppose this is a philosophy book so I couldn't really expect that. There's good analysis of the variations of the trolley problem and some very interesting exploration of how things have and are evolving. It just didn't quite strike enough of the "what your answer tells us about right and wrong" as I had anticipated.
I definitely preferred the first half of the book over the second. I had hoped for a little bit more of analysis into some of the psychology of the trolley problem. Though, I suppose this is a philosophy book so I couldn't really expect that. There's good analysis of the variations of the trolley problem and some very interesting exploration of how things have and are evolving. It just didn't quite strike enough of the "what your answer tells us about right and wrong" as I had anticipated.
November 28, 2020
Interessante saggio divulgativo che affronta il tema della filosofia morale partendo dalla branca della carrellologia. Scritto in modo scorrevole e mai involuto, offre spiegazioni chiare ed è una buona lettura per chi non si è mai approcciato a tale disciplina. Lo consiglio caldamente perché è uno di quei rari libri che, una volta terminati, lasciano qualcosa di importante su cui riflettere e domande sulle quali interrogarsi.
June 29, 2025
Fun little trolley problem book. Gives you a basic introduction to some major moral philosophy and ethics ideas, such as the consequentialist vs deontological argument between Bentham and Kant.
There was also a lot of discussion about neuroscience and how specific parts of the brain might affect moral judgement and decision-making, which might not be too appealing if you only care about the trolley problem.
In any case, I'd recommend it.
There was also a lot of discussion about neuroscience and how specific parts of the brain might affect moral judgement and decision-making, which might not be too appealing if you only care about the trolley problem.
In any case, I'd recommend it.
August 16, 2021
I’ve skipped through the book. I have to say I expected more. I thought there’d some sort of explanation or maybe up-to-date examples, but the book is full of philosophical theories and I couldn’t understand some parts at all.
May 5, 2025
This is a book about the trolley problem aimed at a more general audience. Edmonds is a great writer and is very capable in explaining more complex philosophical ideas in plain language making it available to lay people. Like most pop-phil-books this one ends up being an introduction to the most popular theories. So, if you have no previous understanding of moral philosophy, this would probably be a good start if you feel that it's ///tooooo haaaaaard/// starting with actual philosophical texts.
This book also gets extra brownie points for explaining the ACTUAL trolley problem (which an awful lot of people, even academics, seem to miss), that is - GIVEN that you should obviously flip the switch and save five people even though this results in the death of one, why is it not okay to push the fat man (since the outcome is, in a lot of respects, the same)? I hate to be /the guy/ but I see a lot of people missing the point of the case.
This book also gets extra brownie points for explaining the ACTUAL trolley problem (which an awful lot of people, even academics, seem to miss), that is - GIVEN that you should obviously flip the switch and save five people even though this results in the death of one, why is it not okay to push the fat man (since the outcome is, in a lot of respects, the same)? I hate to be /the guy/ but I see a lot of people missing the point of the case.
June 27, 2023
Libro eccellente. Divulga senza annoiare, spiega senza salire in cattedra, affronta l'argomento in dettaglio sufficiente a fornire un'ottima idea di quale sia il dibattito.
La parte che ho più apprezzato è il confronto con i risultati neuroscientifici e statistici.
Consigliato a chiunque.
La parte che ho più apprezzato è il confronto con i risultati neuroscientifici e statistici.
Consigliato a chiunque.
June 5, 2023
Giustizia, morale, libero arbitrio: cosa sono? Esistono? Il celebre dilemma del carrello ferroviario (e derivati) spiegato ed utilizzato per rispondere a queste domande con un excursus storico -filosofico e le recenti scoperte delle neuroscienze. Parte del libro è praticamente il corso "Justice" che Michael Sandel tiene ad Harvard da almeno 15 anni (è su YouTube da allora ed è anche un libro)
December 21, 2017
3.5
Accessible read for a novice in philosophy. After listening to Philosophize This I wanted to get more into philosophy and the man from the podcast advised by starting to read philosophy books written by scholars that are easy to understand. The book explains the classic example of the trolley case (I remember when Jenny told me about this) and arguments were well laid out to uncover the intentions behind ones decisions, various philosophers take on it and even how in the future hormones will be able to shape our morality. Enjoyed it, and definitely will be looking into more philosophy books to open up my mind to new things.
Accessible read for a novice in philosophy. After listening to Philosophize This I wanted to get more into philosophy and the man from the podcast advised by starting to read philosophy books written by scholars that are easy to understand. The book explains the classic example of the trolley case (I remember when Jenny told me about this) and arguments were well laid out to uncover the intentions behind ones decisions, various philosophers take on it and even how in the future hormones will be able to shape our morality. Enjoyed it, and definitely will be looking into more philosophy books to open up my mind to new things.
June 24, 2020
A very well written introduction to the topic of morality. In only ~220 pages, Edmonds manages to create a comprehensive and very accessible book about the state of the art research regarding the trolley problem. I liked that the book not only covered the thoughts and findings of the moral philosophy but also of more modern research regarding the trolley problem in neuroscience, psychology, etc.
In the end the topic is maybe a bit frustrating, because I think (and I think this is also the conclusion of the author) there is no satisfying answer to different types of the trolley problem.
In the end the topic is maybe a bit frustrating, because I think (and I think this is also the conclusion of the author) there is no satisfying answer to different types of the trolley problem.
Read
April 18, 2021A vivaciously entertaining book on moral philosophy exploring the various renditions of the 'trolley problem'. Far from being an idealized thought experiment suitable only for rote student exercises, the 'trolley problem' is pertinent for tackling real-world moral quandaries and case studies where the lives or welfare of a single person or minority are weighed against the lives of the majority, such as war decisions, organ transplants, torture threats of terrorists during interrogation, and even cases of cannibalism during shipwrecks and unmooring.
July 23, 2023
Un trip pazzesco
January 9, 2024
Illuminante (all'inizio avevo una idea sicura se uccidere o meno "l'uomo grasso", adesso un po' meno...)
January 31, 2024
no I wouldnt
August 29, 2021
A philosophical whodunnit and should they’ve dunnit. Whimsical and entertaining, not too heavy, quite fun actually.
July 5, 2024
Ethics explored through the various interpretations of the ‘trolley’ problem and the alternatives it inspired.
December 21, 2025
A skimming introduction to certain aspects of moral philosophy, without being overly concerned with rigour.
5/10
5/10
October 7, 2020
I really enjoyed this book about different schools of philosophy, but I still don't know whether to push the fat man
February 7, 2023
Cos'è giusto? Cosa è ingiusto? Cosa ci spinge a fare o non fare un'azione ritenendola la cosa migliore da fare in quella situazione? In questo breve saggio si prova a ragionare sulla giustizia attraverso la storia dei dilemmi etici e dei pensatori che hanno dedicato la loro vita al tentativo di trovare un paradigma morale il più giusto possibile. Interessante la presentazione di tutte le rivisitazioni dell'originario dilemma del trolley. E tu, lo uccideresti l'uomo grasso?
January 2, 2021
Excellent book, an amazing travel among the realms of ethics and all the disciplines that have an intercourse with it. It is worth reading both for neophytes but also for consolidated readers of philosophy who want to have a look at some important 20th century ethical doctrines.
July 9, 2020
Let me tell you, this book was a PHENOMENAL read (at least for me, who is obsessed with all things philosophy and ethics right now). It was assigned reading for my favorite class, and it has taught me about so many ethical theories and new ideas while keeping me interested and engaged the whole time. No prior knowledge of “trolleyology” is needed and it is great for beginners and experienced philosophers alike. It causes the reader to examine their own morals and question why we feel the way we do about certain issues, while examining research from several other fields as well. I learned so much and this will stay on my bookshelf for life. Normally having to take chapter quizzes/writing essays on books for a class takes some of the joy out of reading, but not for this book- my experience was actually enriched. 📚
August 13, 2017
Certain points of reasoning and arguing can only be fit in specific scenarios while other philosophers would keep bringing new examples or new transformation of the experiment which have too many new factors to be considered. There shouldn't even be any extra conditions. Why does fat guy have to be an entity of such experiment? Why does the other side necessarily have 5 people but not 2, or 1? Different entities/conditions have different sentimental attachment/decision affecting power. Actually, why even trolley? How about mine cart? cable? even tractor? Conciseness of conditions for such philosophical topic is of importance.
If right and wrong is so hard to be distinguished in the Trolley Problem, there then has to be certain types of compromise, otherwise no matter how bad people think about killing people, they HAVE TO kill someone and case has to end, either the 5 or the big 1, whatever that reason might be. It has to pick one side otherwise it would never be correct. Too much measurement among different variables normally ends up with nil practical progress. What is then the point of listing all the arguments and being all that considerate? Maybe extreme attitudes are flawed. But only extreme ones are unconditional and of solution, thus are correct in a way. If philosophy is not about being right, science could replace its feeble summarizing function and all that reasoning would lose its meaningfulness. Thoughts that stuck in the middle can be comprehensive, multilateral and extensive but it's not supposed to be the ultimate aim of philosophy. Philosophy can't seem to solve much in trolley problem but it is constantly whiny about different answers. And that is seriously annoying.
PS: same with other philosophical experiments, the Trolley Problem is not at all actual and realistic. Since when a fat guy could stop a trolley? Sorry but if he is as ponderous as that, a trolley wouldn't be able to kill him, would it? What is the point of discussing something that can't simply be real?
If right and wrong is so hard to be distinguished in the Trolley Problem, there then has to be certain types of compromise, otherwise no matter how bad people think about killing people, they HAVE TO kill someone and case has to end, either the 5 or the big 1, whatever that reason might be. It has to pick one side otherwise it would never be correct. Too much measurement among different variables normally ends up with nil practical progress. What is then the point of listing all the arguments and being all that considerate? Maybe extreme attitudes are flawed. But only extreme ones are unconditional and of solution, thus are correct in a way. If philosophy is not about being right, science could replace its feeble summarizing function and all that reasoning would lose its meaningfulness. Thoughts that stuck in the middle can be comprehensive, multilateral and extensive but it's not supposed to be the ultimate aim of philosophy. Philosophy can't seem to solve much in trolley problem but it is constantly whiny about different answers. And that is seriously annoying.
PS: same with other philosophical experiments, the Trolley Problem is not at all actual and realistic. Since when a fat guy could stop a trolley? Sorry but if he is as ponderous as that, a trolley wouldn't be able to kill him, would it? What is the point of discussing something that can't simply be real?
August 20, 2017
This is not cutting-edge research, but a book that presents the state-of-the-art in a mostly accessible way. I am using it for my class this fall on Ethics and Autonomous Vehicles. I'm glad I selected it.
The author tries to give some background to these thought-experiments by telling us something about the lives of some of their originators--especially Philippa Foot. That was interesting to me b/c I knew her and had her for a few seminars when I was a grad student at UCLA. But I don't know how interesting or helpful that will be to the average reader. This biographical background is not particularly helpful or insightful for the issues at hand. It more just provides a bit of diversion. The author tries to make connections, but these mostly seem like a stretch. In my recent introductory book on Wittgenstein Simply Wittgenstein I provide biographical background but only specifically when it illuminates the issues at hand. Perhaps it's just a matter of taste, but Foot and friends did not lead all that interesting of lives.
The other slight problem is that the author is British, and so some of the terminology would be obscure to some US readers.
But, those minor points aside, I really liked this book. It covered a wide variety of thought experiments very clearly. It discussed the nature of thought experiments and some of the problems with evoking intuitions. It covered a wide range of ethical theories and concepts and showed how they bore on the issues at hand. It discussed the relationship of ethics to other disciplines. It was very philosophically informed and informative without being too sophisticated for students or average readers.
The author has a PhD in Philosophy from Oxford, and does a great job of "popularizing" philosophy through books like this and through his podcast "Philosophy Bites": https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/p... .
The author tries to give some background to these thought-experiments by telling us something about the lives of some of their originators--especially Philippa Foot. That was interesting to me b/c I knew her and had her for a few seminars when I was a grad student at UCLA. But I don't know how interesting or helpful that will be to the average reader. This biographical background is not particularly helpful or insightful for the issues at hand. It more just provides a bit of diversion. The author tries to make connections, but these mostly seem like a stretch. In my recent introductory book on Wittgenstein Simply Wittgenstein I provide biographical background but only specifically when it illuminates the issues at hand. Perhaps it's just a matter of taste, but Foot and friends did not lead all that interesting of lives.
The other slight problem is that the author is British, and so some of the terminology would be obscure to some US readers.
But, those minor points aside, I really liked this book. It covered a wide variety of thought experiments very clearly. It discussed the nature of thought experiments and some of the problems with evoking intuitions. It covered a wide range of ethical theories and concepts and showed how they bore on the issues at hand. It discussed the relationship of ethics to other disciplines. It was very philosophically informed and informative without being too sophisticated for students or average readers.
The author has a PhD in Philosophy from Oxford, and does a great job of "popularizing" philosophy through books like this and through his podcast "Philosophy Bites": https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/p... .
August 21, 2014
I'm not much on philosophy - have never really studied it (unless struggling through a little bit of Plato counts). But this book was a fascinating study of human perceptions of right and wrong.
The book wraps a discussion of philosophical concepts (most of which I have already forgotten, along with their terms) around a field of study called trolleyology (any British readers, think streetcar/tram, not grocery carts). The study of trolley scenarios (and similar mental exercise) really brings up some bizarre findings in what is right and wrong.
The baseline scenario (call it "Spur") has a trolley careening down a track. There is a branch - left unswitched, the trolley will kill five people strapped to the track. If a switch is thrown, it will kill one person on the other branch. The switch is in front of you - do you throw it?
Most people, in all cultures, say "yes." But then the fun begins...
- What if the one person is a child?
- What if, instead of a switch to throw, you have to push a heavy man from a bridge to stop the trolley before it hits the five people (killing the fat man)
- Etc, etc, etc - scenarios with names like Lazy Susan, Loop, Six Behind One, Tractor Man, etc...
Interspersed are a lot of real-life scenarios - proving that sometimes things that closely mirror these seemingly ridiculous scenarios actually happen!
It was a very thought-provoking read - why do some things "bother us" while others are more clear cut? I'll forget the various people and -isms (absolutism, compatibilism, consequentialism, particularism, ...), but the interesting ways in which our values (at least mine, and most others') shift with bizarre nuances that are very hard to put into words, will stick with me.
Highly recommended. And won't take you long to read.
The book wraps a discussion of philosophical concepts (most of which I have already forgotten, along with their terms) around a field of study called trolleyology (any British readers, think streetcar/tram, not grocery carts). The study of trolley scenarios (and similar mental exercise) really brings up some bizarre findings in what is right and wrong.
The baseline scenario (call it "Spur") has a trolley careening down a track. There is a branch - left unswitched, the trolley will kill five people strapped to the track. If a switch is thrown, it will kill one person on the other branch. The switch is in front of you - do you throw it?
Most people, in all cultures, say "yes." But then the fun begins...
- What if the one person is a child?
- What if, instead of a switch to throw, you have to push a heavy man from a bridge to stop the trolley before it hits the five people (killing the fat man)
- Etc, etc, etc - scenarios with names like Lazy Susan, Loop, Six Behind One, Tractor Man, etc...
Interspersed are a lot of real-life scenarios - proving that sometimes things that closely mirror these seemingly ridiculous scenarios actually happen!
It was a very thought-provoking read - why do some things "bother us" while others are more clear cut? I'll forget the various people and -isms (absolutism, compatibilism, consequentialism, particularism, ...), but the interesting ways in which our values (at least mine, and most others') shift with bizarre nuances that are very hard to put into words, will stick with me.
Highly recommended. And won't take you long to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 224 reviews