The Trolley Problem | Judith Jarvis Thomson | Keyword
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 тра 2024
- In this episode, I present Judith Jarvis Thomson's Trolley Problem, perhaps the most famous philosophical dilemma ever devised.
Please consider donating to one of the following organizations:
Palestinian Children's Relief Fund: pcrf1.app.neoncrm.com/forms/g...
United Nations Relief and Works Agency: donate.unrwa.org/gaza/~my-don...
Middle East Children's Alliance:
secure.everyaction.com/1_w5eg...
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
TikTok: @theoryphilosophy
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/
I was able to watch a televised panel discussion in Japan on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attacks. Near the end of the discussion, a college student asked the panel, which had overwhelmingly condemned the attacks, if anyone believed Japan would have hesitated to use atom bombs on cities in the US.
When I told an American friend about this, he reflexively took the panel's conclusion, that atomic weapons probably would have been used without much debate, as further proof that the atomic attacks were morally correct. Of course, that wasn't the point at all.
In the many decades we've had to reflect on our worst actions, we seem to have only retrenched further into bland denial and obstinate defensiveness.
I think that our own history is too terrifying for most us to face, paralyzing our moral lives. This puts us in the exactly the right state to commit more horrors while commending ourselves for doing so. As we now witness daily.
Is there something special about the Anglo-Saxon civilization? Anglo-Saxons tend to say not - that we stand out due to our dominance. But I think that the evidence is against us.
I know its probably not in the spirt of the video but have you read Allen Wood's essay attacking the whole method behind "thought experiments" like the trolley problem (I think its in Volume 2 of Parfits "What Matters")? The basic point being that such experiments are destined to argumentatively fail because they make massive assumptions about what is and what is not supposed to be included in such situations (and also generate pseudo-problems for the same reason). Wood's anger at the whole approach is evident and makes the text hilarious imo. (Parfitt never responded either hahaha).
I love your content, thank you.
I knew about Foot. I didn't know about Thomson, however...
The Trolley Problem is used in psychology, for example, most people would throw a switch to re-direct the trolley but almost nobody would push a bystander onto the tracks to divert or stop the trolley, even though the actions are morally equivalent and the results are indistinguishable.
I had read in the late Michael Brooks' book "Against the Web" that Thomson's formulation of the problem is different than pulling a lever (the original one being from Philippa Foot):
"George knows that the only way to stop an out of control trolley is to drop a very heavy weight into its path. But the only available, sufficiently heavy weight is a fat man, also watching the trolley from the footbridge. George can shove the fat man onto the track in the path of the trolley, or he can refrain from doing this, letting the five die.
...the different responses that people give demonstrate that in real life, people distinguish between actively participating in a killing and letting someone die."
It seems that the Trolly problem is baked into Military Strategy.
There is a great video by the video essayist Shaun breaking down the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the basic takeaway is that the is no factual basis for the (propaganda) narrative that the US was ethically justified in their bombing bc it saved lives. Basically, he would go further than “the US wouldn’t have liked to be bombed by Japan” to “the US did not actually care about saving lives, and cared more about flexing towards the USSR.” While this is obviously just a single example, I think a lot of these real world trolley problems serve more as post hoc rationalizations than actual ethical dilemmas faced by political actors. (I feel this way about utilitarianism in general lol)
Honestly I think the trolley problem is low tier "dilemma" because it presups a objective morality standard around it ( which it doesn't define) and since it only presups it without the mention it and we are to silently presume it, any decision under the trolley is valid. The trolley problem should be Approached nihilistically because it's just a question of one think should happen.
So there is no right or wrong answer. And there also no ought, and there is no justification because it's all opinions
Have you an example of what a real dilemma might be?
Perhaps saying it saved lives is speculative, saying the lives of one country are less valued is also wrong, the analogy is a little off because war must be won. I do see we use these things to justify wrong, and that seems to be what humans do.
I've heard "Categorical Imperative" without Kant's name attached to it. The attribution is implied for even many laymen because Kant is more well known. I think it has more to do with 'classic' philosophy given more attention to a broader audience than more 'contemeporary' thinkers, and less to do with sexism. Also, if the field of contribution to philosophy was narrower then more names would be given attention do to time budgets. Of course, mentioning "sexism" gives an academic brownie points with their colleages this day and age.
I always see "What is it like to be a bat?" attached to Nagel's name, who is a contemporary of both Foot and Thomson. I have watched several videos about the trolley problem and this may be the first time I've heard its creators mentioned.
I think you are just confusing stuff here friend how does the bodily autonomy and the "killing" of a fetus has anything to do with the trolley problem , biologically speaking the mother is required for the fetus to develop yes but if we are speaking in a socio-psychological language then there is a right to bodily autonomy (even by law) now if we think of it the Kantian CE way imo this wont go well cause there is some contradictions in there but i would probably try to say this If a fetus has not yet develop the ability to feel the world and his mom its ok for the mom to abort since the mom may not be ready for it or she may not be healthy (or the fetus healthy ) for this . Now if the Fetus is more developed you should still be able to abort if there is health concerns about the mother, personally i would say otherwise the vast majority of women would keep the baby anyway cause they are emotionally bonded by that time.
Most women view men as a means to an end. To answer your question.
?
Loser mentality
Who hurt you
@@abhineetmaurya4334 You want the whole list? :)
Why don’t you just call it that? You don’t even make your title representative of what you’re complaining about. Can’t even be the change you want to see.