Turning the Trolley

Thomson, James

doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2008.00144.x

Cited by 178 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Judith Jarvis Thomson, for example, the basic trolley problem is to explain the above-described asymmetry in our judgments. (Thomson 2008) That is, why is it permissible in one case to save the five by sacrificing the one, whereas it is not permissible to save the five by sacrificing the one in the other case? Others favor a wider interpretation of the trolley problem, holding that this problem also arises in cases that don't involve any trolleys at all.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethics of Accident-Algorithms for Self-Driving Cars: an Applied Trolley Problem?

Nyholm

Smids

2016

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

225

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-driving cars hold out the promise of being safer than manually driven cars. Yet they cannot be a 100 % safe. Collisions are sometimes unavoidable. So self-driving cars need to be programmed for how they should respond to scenarios where collisions are highly likely or unavoidable. The accident-scenarios self-driving cars might face have recently been likened to the key examples and dilemmas associated with the trolley problem. In this article, we critically examine this tempting analogy. We identify three important ways in which the ethics of accidentalgorithms for self-driving cars and the philosophy of the trolley problem differ from each other. These concern: (i) the basic decision-making situation faced by those who decide how selfdriving cars should be programmed to deal with accidents; (ii) moral and legal responsibility; and (iii) decision-making in the face of risks and uncertainty. In discussing these three areas of disanalogy, we isolate and identify a number of basic issues and complexities that arise within the ethics of the programming of self-driving cars.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethics of Accident-Algorithms for Self-Driving Cars: an Applied Trolley Problem?

Nyholm

Smids

2016

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

225

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The presumptive principle may still hold absolute sway with regard to human beings, as a prerogative we reserve for our own species. (This could be a way to understand the exquisite re-analysis of the trolley car cases in Thomson 2008.) Thus, my argument against animal research is compatible with speciesism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 75%

Innocent and Innocuous: The Case Against Animal Research

Marks

2010

BTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal research is a challenging issue for the animal advocate because of what, besides animal well-being, is considered to be at stake, namely, human health. This article seeks to vindicate the antivivisectionist position. The standard defense of animal research as promoting the overwhelming good of human health is refuted on both factual and logical, or normative-theoretical, grounds. The author then attempts to clinch the case by arguing that animal research violates a deontic principle. However, this principle falls to counterexample. The author concludes, nevertheless, that the principle retains force as a presumption that the current state of affairs fails to overthrow. This does suggest, though, that the antivivisection movement would be well advised to keep ahead of the curve. The author proposes it do so by emulating the vegan movement against animal agriculture with the active promotion of alternatives to animal research.

show abstract

“…It seems to me that while such a heroic act of self-sacrifice is not morally required, there is nothing wrong with your freely choosing it. Thomson (2008) would disagree. She argues that "a willingness to give up one's life simply on learning that [someone else] will live if and only if one dies is a sign of a serious moral defect in a person" (ibid., p. 366, original emphasis), as it is indicative of the fact that one values one's own life insufficiently.…”

Section: Comparing Innocent Threat Casesmentioning

confidence: 97%