Let’s do the Trolley Problem - properly (Venue: Caffè Nero)

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

It's not quite spring yet so we will continue to meet indoors for the next few weeks.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Let's do the trolley problem - properly !

This week's topic has been prepared by Duncan.

Even amongst non-philosophers (strange people, I know ...), the Trolley Problem thought experiment has taken on an almost mythical and meme-like status. There are even websites dedicated to ever more bizarre variations on the original theme. But they almost all miss the original point of the problem. Let's put that right.

Thought experiments in philosophy are imaginary, hypothetical scenarios designed to test arguments, clarify concepts, and challenge intuitions, often where real-world experimentation is impossible, unethical, or impractical. They function as "laboratory of the mind" tools to explore ethical dilemmas, reveal hidden assumptions, and evaluate philosophical theories, focusing on reasoning rather than specific outcomes.

The Trolley Problem was originally presented by the English philosopher Philippa Foot in a 1967 paper but became more widely known thanks to Judith Jarvis Thomson in a 1976 article that catalysed a large literature on similar themes. It refers to the meta-problem of why different judgements are arrived at in particular instances. (Foot was responding to the Catholic church's policy on abortion, but that isn't directly relevant here).

Whilst it's tempting to see it (and its variations) as a problem to be solved, one intention was to get us to reflect on our intuitions and, in particular, whether they have 'epistemic authority', i.e. whether we can rely on intuitions for moral knowledge when faced with ethical problems, or whether we should take a breath and think more deeply before acting or judging.

The purpose of the Trolley Problem is not to solve the Trolley Problem, because there is arguably no "right answer".

Most people will say that it is morally permissible to throw the switch, thus killing one person to save five. Some may even say it is obligatory to do so.

But a couple of very similar thought experiments often result in the opposite view. Imagine a surgeon is operating on a man. He notices that the man's organs are in fine shape and thinks that if he kills he man, he can save the lives of five other people who are waiting for transplants. Alternatively, you're standing on a bridge watching the runaway trolley. Next to you is a fat man and if you push him in front of the trolley, it will save the five but at the cost of his life.

What's the difference ? The end result is the same, isn't it ? Some might say there is a difference between foreseeing a harm, permitting it, and causing it.

A related intention was to analyse the tension between competing ethical frameworks, such as utilitarianism (saving the most lives) and deontology (duty not to kill), rather than to provide a single "correct" answer. It challenges moral reasoning, explores the distinction between action and omission, and explore how individuals weigh consequences against moral duties.

Foot is also interested in the difference between positive and negative rights; that is, between our right to do something and the freedom from having something done to us.

Here is Foot's original paper (with a dissenting response from Elizabeth Anscombe): https://philpapers.org/archive/footpo-2.pdf