Add Bystander Initials with airSlate SignNow

Add bystander initials

recording here okay so we're running live now more trolliology today here we go okay hopefully you can hear me well you can see my screen let's do the administrative matter real quick um where is it okay nope not there sorry about that so what i'm gonna go ahead and do is um a lot for just a bit more class time so six to seven twenty um since i said the course were seven ten if you duck out at seven um ten um regularly that's okay um obviously it's you know you're you're here optionally anyways so i do appreciate you all being here though and then office hours since i um extended the class time a little bit we're going to start office hours a little bit later and they'll run a little bit later um if we need to do a workaround on the office hours for any of you individually just let me know okay that's the administrative matter real easy let's see so let's see i think last time if i'm right we talked just very briefly about thompson's um reply to those who would use the killing versus letting die and the kantian formula humanity principle to resolve solve the trolley problem so just so we're remembering what the trolley problem is it's captured here on this slide what explains the moral difference between the original trolley and transplant cases this whole two days ago so maybe we need a refresher on what the original trolley and transplant cases are remember keep in mind that whatever explains the difference is a non-utilitarian ethical principle or claim i'll just note that that parenthetical quickly come back to it so let's see um right here we go we got the initial trolley cases is the original trolley case i'm sure you're all remembering this one but just to refresh the memories just in case there's um [Music] some issues with remembering some of the particulars of the cases so you're zooming along the trolley that's you and the trolley there's a switch that you could use if you activate the switch then you end up um redirecting the danger that these five are in these these um trolley track workers to the one trolley track worker if you flip the switch if you do nothing then you're just gonna smash into and kill the five okay or you're going to smash them to kill the plug i shouldn't say just do that that'd be pretty serious and what thompson claims is the overwhelming judgment in the case is that it's permissible for you to flip the switch it'd be permissible for anyone in the situation all things being equal to flip the switch right you can imagine like it um you know the intuition or the judgment shifting if you're in the trolley and you imagine um your mom being over here but that's to really mess with the all things being equal for viso that we use that makes sense so the original trolley doesn't involve that that might be some mom trolley case that we can develop so remember the trolley problem is that there's a moral difference between the original trolley and transplant case and so what's a transplant case well here it is remember it involves you the surgeon you have five dying patients in your clinic you have a healthy patient who just walked in the door the dying patients need a need in oregon you can get all the organs from healthy patient you just have to um or you would have to kill the healthy patient so perform surgery on healthy patient harvest healthy patients organs and then tran perform transplant procedures on the dynein patients to save them so the thought is is look in the original trolley case you can permissibly or morality allows one to redirect danger from the five to the one it's like a big picture way of thinking about it morality allows us to do that we want to know what immorality or what explains why morality allows us to do that but the case suggests that morality lets us do it maybe morality requires us to do it there's debate about that as thompson notes and then in this case right we could redirect as the surgeon we could redirect the danger that the dying patients are in couldn't we to the to the to the danger had by the healthy patient we can take away the danger the dining patients are in by just giving them the organs that the healthy patient has that makes sense so in both cases you have that that going on but in the original trolley case is permissible to do the redirecting and in the surgeon case it isn't does that make sense so what explains that moral difference between the cases and it can't be utilitarianism right because utilitarianism the view which as we should promote the happiness of all would seem to suggest that what we need to do in the surgeon in the transplant case is have surgeon perform surgery on a healthy patient to have his organs harvested okay so um so that's just to refresh your memory on on the two cases the charlie problem itself at least initially here all right and i've just explained this parenthetical thompson she's no utilitarian thinker okay so we saw a foot solution i think we talked about it briefly last time the moral difference between original truly transplant is the following in the original trolley it's morally permissible to kill the one in order to save the five because it is better all things equal to kill one than it is to kill so it's kill versus kill in the original trolley case okay so um when we're redirecting danger we're redirecting danger to kill from a case of the danger involving killing and then transplant food argues that it's more impermissible to kill the one in order to save the five because it is better to um to let five die than it is to kill the one okay so there's a moral difference between killing letting die generally and then you just fill in the numbers okay and you see how the killing versus letting die is not a utilitarian principle it's better to let five die than it is to kill the one the utilitarians would say there's no more difference between killing and letting die what's morally relevant or the consequence consequences the outcomes so it'd be better to kill one and let five die does that make sense so when you let five die um as opposed to killing the one you end up with a minus four number of lives saved right so holding a whole lot of things fixed that could be relevant your happiness levels lifespan levels and all the rest of the individuals in question again with more happiness it seems overall if you killed the one the killing versus the die principle says no killing is so serious that it's better to let the five die okay good question of course um wouldn't you also be killing the one like in the trolley because if you like the one isn't really in danger in the first place kind of like the healthy patient yeah that's what if you look at this foot foot recognizes that in the original trolley case you're killing one or you're killing five in both cases you're killing okay okay i see so the the letting die just isn't even an option in the original trolley case and that's what accounts for the moral difference because in the transplant case it is a life it's according to foot's understanding of things now one thing that thompson does say in reply to foot here and in other places is just that um some killings involve letting guys lettings die as she puts it so um or sometimes it doesn't look like there's a moral difference between killing and letting die and famous cases have been developed to try to um to try to show that so one famous case is like imagine you want um you want uh your nephew's inheritance and so you you go upstairs you plan to you plan to kill your nephew he's taking a bath or something so you hold him underwater you kill him and all the rest okay and then you get the inheritance but now imagine a as that's the case of killing obviously a morally atrocious case but now imagine a case where you plan to kill your nephew to get his inheritance you go upstairs to kill your nephew um but your nephew starts drowning for whatever reason maybe the radio drops in the water i don't know and he's drowning you could save your nephew's life but you just stand there just count it out five four three two one dead boom you let you let your nephew die that's morally atrocious as well doesn't look there's a mortgage between killing and letting die in cases like these okay because hopefully that clarified some things for you and for others who may have had similar questions okay um so thompson's reply to foot involves saying about the bystander case remember so let's get to the bystander case i think i have it here it's a bit more convoluted than the original trolley case so everything's like the original trolley case except you you faint okay there's a default direction going to the right here you can't use a switch obviously because you're unconscious i mean just think about the psychological um discomfort that would cause you being in a situation where you had to make a decision like this but no worries there's bystander who has a switch the switch does the same thing as the switch in the trolley would do and so if bystander doesn't do anything then what thompson claims is that's on a par with letting the five die okay he certainly isn't in the trolley he's not directing the trolley or anything like that so thompson wants to say this seems like a case of letting die if there is any and then if bystander flips the switch then bystander is killing killing one thompson says okay what's the difference in these cases the key difference is just that it's a bystander as opposed to this person who faints who's making the decision so if an original trolley it was okay if morality permitted us to flip the switch to kill the one redirecting danger in that direction then bystander can do the same thing in this case so but so she claims that she has the strong moral judgment and many others do as well that bystander can morally speaking um flip the switch to kill the one thus putting the five out of danger putting the one in danger i think the easiest way of thinking about the argument for that again is just that there's no moral difference between original trolley and bystander the fact that you have fainting happening here not that big a deal but i think the bystander bit is supposed to build in the fact that there'd be a case this case would involve letting die as opposed to killing you see this wouldn't be killing versus killing in this case is killing versus letting die but then thompson's like looks like the bystander can flip the switch so it's better to kill the one that is let the five die that counts against the killing versus that indict principle which has it that it's that it's worse to kill one than the let5 die right okay and then then there's a formula of humanity something we just talked about briefly last time so this is a principle from kant khan's ethics 18th century german philosopher anti-utilitarian philosopher in a major way so the formula of humanity has that's always more than wrong to humanity as a mere means to one's ends it's always morally wrong to treat humanity as a mere thing and it's always more than required to treat humanity as and in itself in other words it's always morally required that we treat humanity as if humanity is priceless or has absolute worth so conti actually argues for the claim that humanity has um an absolute worth by arguing that there's no price that you can assign to human life even though we have done so in human history we were wrong to do so so that's just a way of understanding the formula of humanity thompson doesn't really go into too much detail with the formula of humanity she ultimately thinks that these ideas like mere means to one's ends and ends in itself she thinks that these terms aren't too helpful morally but anyway she develops a case against it anyways so the way the form of humanity would be used to solve the um the trolley problem involving about one and two as i have listed here on the slide one does not violate the formula of humanity merely by killing the one in order to save the five in the original trolley case but surge in in the transplant case violates the form of humanity by killing hp in order to save the dps killing the healthy patient in order to save the dying patients again in transplant okay okay now thompson doesn't get into trying to support this this is just something that you know drops out of content thinking that's widely accepted but of course this would if we're doing content ethics requires some discussion thompson no sets it aside grants it for argument's sake and then develops a loop case against it so even granting what contents think is true about the formula of humanity what it implies morally speaking the loop case is going to show that it fails the form of humanity fails to be precise so then we move from bystander to loop case don't we and loop case looks just like bystander except for we add some track here we add some material here some extra wood and some pikes or whatever and then we add some more mass over here we add mass to the one we leave this mass the same over here so you have bystander of the switch you have the fainting person in the trolley you have the looping tracks so we call the loop case and here i call this individual the portly fella pf portly meaning husky large right um originally this individual is called the fat man i'm trying to be politically corrected nice this is the portly fella big guy husky guy whatever and i introduced poorly fell earlier than thompson introduces the fat man later on in the paper so this is kind of a cameo and early anachronistic cameo appearance if you'll work with me on that okay so here's the big picture argument that thompson gives bystander case and loop case are such that there's no moral difference between them so since bystander can flip the switch in the bystander case bystander can put the switch in the loop case like morally speaking here's her here's her argument how can mass here with this individual the one workmen the one work person or the one worker and and the amount of track that's added here amount to a moral difference between these cases so the um the form of humanity fails here's why that part sort of needs to be built in and thought about um uh somewhat carefully the thing is is bystander has to target specific features had by the poorly fellow by pf namely the mass had by pf and he uses these features had by pf in such a way that he's treating the poor the fellow as it mere means as a mere tool as a mere instrument for his purposes for saving uh the five so the thought here is supposed to be i think um look if if bystander does nothing then the trolley is gonna zoom and kill the five loop around and smash and kill the poorly fella okay so the other options flip the switch kill the poorly fell to save the fire the mass of the poorly fell is gonna stop the stop the trolley or stop it eventually maybe it stops here i don't know just stipulate it's not gonna hit the five so five we're gonna be fine okay so a formula with humanity um especially it has a has a counter example in this loop trolley case so it can't be used to explain the moral difference between the original trolley and transplant got you so since it's permissible to kill the poorly fella in the loop case transformative humanity fails it's not true so it can't be used in order to explain the moral difference between original trolley and transplant okay so trolleyology can help us be useful in in multiple ways but one of the ways it can be useful is in helping us think about and evaluating ethical moral principles theories so we've got utilitarianism which we've talked about we've got the killian versus letting die the killing is worse than thy principle or the killing versus 99 principle and then the formula of humanity okay so we've learned some decent theory just by thinking about these hypothetical trolley cases and i'll say more about these theories and principles as you can imagine even this time but as the course goes on as well okay so we can skip that one this is just recapping the original formulation of the trolley problem here are the trolley cases that we've talked about so far just as a as a brief just sketch recap of the cases that we have the original trolley the transplant case remember that involves the surgeon so it's not really a trolley case but it's included in trolleyology cases because it's sort of one of the foundational cases in the trolleology studies beginning with foot and thompson and then we have the bystander to switch case and then the loop case we'll talk about one other uh trolley case in a little bit again this is just you got these theories and principles so far i just wanted to say a couple of things that might be helpful so with utilitarianism we'll learn more about it as a course goes on but here's a slogan to guide us initially thinking about utilitarianism something you can hang your hat on when you think about it quickly it gets more sophisticated and complicated when you think more carefully about utilitarianism but this is an initially perfectly fine slogan to use promote the happiness of all to promote the happiness of all okay so um it falls under the category of ethical theories known as consequentialism and the slogan for consequentialism if you wanted something to hang your head on is promote the good promote the good what the utilitarian does is define the good as the happiness of all okay and all is typically all sentient beings or all the sentient beings that would be affected by one's actions something like that okay the killing is morally worse than letting die principle i think you have a pretty good grasp of this one i'm i'm guessing um this is the general principle a particular kind of case might be helpful for understanding the general principle one that you're likely familiar with think about the difference between active and passive euthanasia those who endorse passive euthanasia in the biomedical ethical literature or just generally because they thought about these issues they um they're likely to understand passive euthanasia as a form of letting die many of those advocates of passive euthanasia aren't advocates of active euthanasia because they think that active euthanasia is killing and killing is worse than letting die many of them would claim that killing is or intentionally killing is always wrong there's different kinds of folks who endorse this kind of principle but um currently in our in our biomed ethical practices as far as we think about euthanasia involving um the medical professionals doing the killing or the letting die active euthanasia under when we understand euthanasia in the ways that i in the way that i just described is currently forbidden whereas path of euthanasia is permissible so long as some very significant conditions are satisfied so just keep in mind that i'm i'm defining euthanasia differently than how i would define um physician-assisted suicide even though you'll see them lumped together in places the difference is just in who's doing the killing right with physician-assisted suicide it is suicide it is self-killing euthanasia it's the physician who's doing the killing if it's act if it's active euthanasia if it's a if it's a letting die if it's a passive euthanasia situation it's the physician who's directing the letting die typically with the palliative care morphine and other drugs that help someone pass peacefully in that way okay then there's a form of humanity i just want to give you a slogan for it and we'll talk more about it too but treat humanity with the absolute worth they have and you can do that positively or negatively consequent works this out in some of his works so you treat humanity with absolute worth they have negatively by not treating them as a mere tool or instrument but positively conscious things like you you take up the goals that others have and you make them yours such that you help them to help others attain their goals you help improve their humanity in that way can't we put it okay so thompson she offers the solutions let's turn to that let's turn to thompson's solution she focuses though on the bystander and transplant cases in her solution to the trolley problem so she sets up the trolley problem by initially by having us think about the original trolley case and the transplant case but when she offers her solution she switches you may have noticed this if you didn't it kind of happens quickly she switches to the bystander transplant cases so the question then becomes the question that needs answering to solve the trolley problem is this then what explains the moral difference between bystander and transplant we remember thompson doesn't mean there's a moral difference between original trolley and and bystander remember so there's if that's the case and there's no problem with swapping out the original trolley case at this point and using bystander okay okay so what's the moral difference between bystander transplant member in bystander um the bystander at the switch is within his moral rights or he's morally permitted to flip the switch to direct the danger to the one a trolley worker away from the five in transplant the surgeon is not allowed to redirect the danger from the five dying patients to a healthy patient what explains that so we're dealing with thompson solution she doesn't go killian versus letting die she certainly doesn't go utilitarianism she does not go formula humanity for the reasons we've already talked about her solution involves thinking about this concept of a right and one of thompson's main contributions in her ethical works um across the board is is with respect to thinking about thinking carefully about what it means to have rights having the right to life and the like in the abortion debate um her defensive abortion paper she does a nice job of helping think about when a fetus has the right to the use of a female's body for example so um what is a right i'm gonna say a couple things this is a little bit of a sidebar for the rest of the slide here um but i'll just mention um to help um with some foundational ideas and thinking about having a right or think about what a right is so i imagine many of you have a good sense of what what it means to have a right but a right is a claim that one can make to something perhaps from someone right so a right is a claim that one can make right for something or two something usually from someone or some group um so typically where there's a claim that one has to something there's a corresponding duty that that claim be upheld right so think about um an easy case think about one of the important rights that we have the right to life which involves like a cluster of rights doesn't it when you unpack it think about it carefully just think about just having a right to life well if if you have a right to life then there's a claim on others not to kill you or not to do things that puts you in harm's way such that your death is imminent or the like that makes sense so typically where there's a right there's well we know that there's a claim involved but then there's a corresponding obligation perhaps a necessary one holding between a right and a duty a right and an obligation so if you if you have the right to life then i have the right to um i have the right not i have the right i'm sorry i have the obligation not to kill you and vice versa if i have the right to life then then you have the obligation not to kill me that's just an easy example if you have the right to free speech then i have obligation not to prevent you from speaking from using your speech there's another easy example thinking about a significant right that we're pretty well aware of so there's rights and there's corresponding duties just to round things out here there are positive duties or positive rights negative rights and then positive duties and negative duties so a positive a positive right is a right that you have to be benefited so cases like paradigmatic cases where we see where we where we um see positive rights would be children in relation to their parents children have positive rights to be benefited by their parents parents then have positive duties positive obligations to provide those benefits and there's positive rights i'm sorry there's negative rights as well the right not to be interfered with and not the right not to be killed but they're corresponding to those negative rights or negative obligations negative duties the negative right not to be interfered with sorry the negative duty not to interfere with others the negative duty to um to not kill others etc that's hopefully just some simple examples wrap our minds around so thompson's solutions and involve thinking about this concept of rights okay any questions or clarifications needed let's see what's in the chat here uh okay i think this question was asked already if i didn't answer if i didn't answer it please let me know okay it was this yasmine's question if i'm saying your name right if i'm wrong saying it wrong let me know feel free to correct me um so let's go to the thompson um the to the trolley problem page 1403 there's something i want you to note you can go back to it so i think it'd be helpful to remember this passage because if you're ever lost in some of the weeds of the thompson in understanding her solution this passage will set you straight at least that's my hope so 1403 this is um right the very beginning of section five so again thompson when she's thinking about the the trolley problem trying to solve it writing her solution she's thinking about the bystander case and the transplant case what accounts for the moral difference between them so here she goes suppose the bystander at the switch proceeds so think about the bystander case here he throws the switch flips the switch thereby turning the trolley onto the right hand track the way i drew it up it was the left-hand side but work with me thereby causing the one to be hit by the trolley thereby killing him but saving the five on the straight track there are two facts about what he does so it's really this part here that's so significant there are two facts about what he does which seem to me to explain the moral difference between what he does and what the agent and transplant would be doing if he proceeded if he were to operate on the healthy patient harvest the organs and all the rest of course which would kill the healthy patient she continues in the first place the bystander saves his five by making something that threatens them instead threaten one again so i'll put in put it in a different way here in the first place the bystander saves right the five uh workers trolley workers by making something that threatens them instead threaten the one okay by directing the trolley toward the one trolley track worker okay so that's that should be pretty straightforward okay and second the bystander does not do that does it does not do that does not threaten the one trolley track worker by means which themselves constitute an infringement of any right of the ones so the the way in which the means taken to divert danger to the one away from the five in the bystander case does not involve violating a right of the one trolley track worker it's the means themselves that don't do so that's what's important to note here the means taken to deflect or redirect danger to the one as opposed to the five away from the five don't involve okay a violation or infringement of any right of the ones of the one troll track workers so i think if you keep coming back to this you should be fine i'm going to try to unpack this and explain this more i just wanted to read this passage for you and highlight it so you can keep coming back to it if need be let's just just um while we're here think about what happens in transplant case in the transplant case if he if the surgeon were to perform surgery on the healthy patient to harvest the organs to give them to the dying patients to save the dying patients the means taken to redirect danger away from the dying patients of a healthy patient essentially involve a violation of the healthy patients rights right the unwilling operation that we performed on him to harvest his organs if you think about it like this in the bystander case in order to redirect danger toward the one trolley track workmen the means taken involved re flipping a switch throwing the switch as thompson calls it right and throwing a switch all by itself doesn't involve what violating anyone's rights okay so that's the crucial thing if you're getting that then you're doing great and i'll but don't worry i'll say it again on the slide so you'll see you know it not just through my voice but also through words on the slide so i know it's a bit tricky at first can be anyways okay so let's go back to the bystander cases just walk through this make sure we've got this so danger is directed towards the five bystander can direct the danger towards the one right away from the five right he can do so by means that themselves do not constitute an infringement on the rights of the ones of one's excuse me so here i'm just using very thompson like language by means that themselves do not constitute a violation of one of of the ones rights yeah be another way of putting um the point here but still that's that that's abstract right and we put it more concretely but let's have a look again transplant case we're surgeon oh actually we'll talk about the transplant case then we'll come back to the um to the bystander case with um with more concrete detail so i deal with the bystander transplant cases abstractly here on the slides first and then in turn deal with them concretely so transplant case we're a surgeon to direct danger to healthy patient in order to free dying patients of danger the danger that they're in because they have failing organs he would have to do so again through means that constitute an infringement of the rights of healthy patients so the means taken into divert danger involve by this infringement of the rights of a healthy patient so now back to the bystander case talking about it more concretely bystander simply needs to turn the trolley onto the tracks on which the one is situated the one right trolley track worker so it's this phrase here right that's capturing the action right the means that need to be taken in order to divert danger away from the five onto the one right in order to redirect danger from the five to the one and in doing this in itself does not constitute an infringement on the right on the rights of ones okay so that phrase right there that's that's that captures the means taken in the bystander case and turning trolleys in this way or directing trolleys by turning a switch flipping a switch by itself doesn't involve a violation of one's rights of the one's rights okay now the transplant case again i've already noted this but just so you can see it again surgeon needs to operate on an unwilling patient that's the phrase that's important isn't it like operating on an online patient is the means that surgeon needs to take in order to redirect danger from the healthy patients to the um away from the dying patients to the healthy patient excuse me the five to the one the means that surgeon needs to take to redirect danger from the dying patients a healthy patient do constitute an infringement of healthy patients rights okay so that's the solution what thompson wants to do next and i think this next case that we talk about will help i think drive home her solution even more she wants to give us a case another trolley case i believe as a way of independently um showing that her solution is the correct one or at least one to be taken very seriously so now we're going to talk about the footbridge case this is known as the fat man case if you're interested there's a book out there recently published by david edmonds i think it's co-written but i can't remember but david edmonds is called would you push the fat man you might be interested in it lots of discussion of trolley cases more than you could imagine we're gonna talk about i call it the footbridge case as opposed to the fat man case um so let's let's have a look um let's go to 1409 in the thompson here okay so at the beginning of section seven so um after giving her solution you know she deals with some potential responses to her solution we don't need to get into those weeds unless you guys want to talk about them but more precisely she notes here at the beginning of session seven it's not morally required of us that we let a burden descend out of the blue onto five when we when we can make it descend instead onto one if if italics here if we can make it descend onto the one by means which do not themselves constitute infringements or violations of of rights of the one so this captures her you know solution again in slightly more complicated language and then she moves on really really quickly to the what she calls a fat man case i call the footbridge case consider a case which i call the which i call the fat man in which you are standing on a footbridge over the trolley track you can see a trolley hurtling down the track out of control you turn around to see where the trolley is headed and their five workmen on the track where it exits from under the footbridge what to do being an expert on trolleys you know of one certain way to stop an out of control trolley drop a really heavy weight on his path but where to find one it just so happens that standing next to you on the footbridge is a fat man a really fat man he is leaning over the railing watching the trolley all you have to do is to give him a little shove and over the railing he will go so we must be leaning pretty good into things there onto the track in the path of the trolley would it be permissible for you to do this everybody to whom i have put this case says it would not be but why now i haven't had her luck in everybody claiming that it'd be impermissible to do this but i'd say 98 say that and sometimes actually it depends on the order the trolley cases i present them how people answer and respond to the footbridge case as i call it anyways okay so back to our presentation here i picked i found a couple um images depicted online of the footbridge case the only difference here work with me is just that these individuals are tied down as opposed to just working so that's just a contingent difference in the presentation isn't it but here's the portly fella as i call him pf so now you know why poorly fellow has a cameo appearance earlier he's now here and there you are and all you have to do is give a little push and he'll his mass will stop the momentum of the trolley saving the five danger can be redirected from who from the five on to the one is it permissible thompson says no okay here she can invoke her the theoretical framework she's given us having to do with rights can't she the means i would be that are the means that are required to redirect the danger from the five to the one involve violating the one's rights yeah you gotta push him you gotta shove him shove him off a footbridge it probably violates his right that you shove him in the first place so as we say in philosophy a fortiori right or all the more right it's gonna be a violation of his rights to shove him off a footbridge okay here's another um depiction of the footbridge case so some don't like the fact that the way tom said the case you got to push um you gotta shove the poorly fella they need that taints the the intuitions that we have in thinking about the case so instead there you are in your fancy suit you've got to flip this switch or bystander here makes it a cameo appearance he's ready to go at the switch you see so but the means taken here right again seem to violate poorly fellow's rights right it's not it's not a shoving but it's a thrusting off of a footbridge using a mechanical switch using mechanical means not your not your very hands to do the dirty work is that okay no you're still infringing on his rights sorry i said no it's not okay because you're still infringing on their rights oh yeah yeah that's right i think what i meant was is that okay in the sense of um is that okay that it made sense what i said but i i hear you or you can continue yeah so here we got the footbridge case so the means required to direct danger towards uh poorly fella and thus away from the five track workers constitutes an infringement on poorly fellows rights this explains the world difference between bystander footbridge okay it provides independent support doesn't it for thompson's solution because we could multiply these if we wanted oh you know ad nauseam right until we're sick of thinking about it in other words okay so on his face it's pretty it sounds pretty ingenious right i mean there have been people who have responded to thompson but on his face this is a pretty ingenious reply or tempted solution anyways so here's something i wanted to take up um some that thompson deals with in her paper um there's a host of things that she takes up but this is something i wanted to take up i think it's important because some of you might be thinking that when we go back to the bystander case you might be thinking um the one track worker to whom right uh danger is redirected his rights are violated for crying out loud he has the right to life and that right to life is violated that's violated because you're because you're killing him you're killing us when you flip the switch and direct the trolling in that direction so so doesn't the one track worker and bystander have his right to life violated now some in the literature accordia thompson say no he doesn't because the situation is such that he's he in virtue being the situation he's in loses the right to life or something like that thompson says that's an absurd view of having the right to life you don't lose the right's life because you're in the bystander circumstance right the bystander k circumstance so bystander retains sorry the one track worker in the bystander case retains the right to life it is violated and then she has she says more it's just that the means to directing a burden or a danger or catastrophe i add there a little bit to what thompson said there i think she's using burden just more inclusively i'm trying to draw that out by including danger catastrophe which is that the means to directing a burden or a danger catastrophe away from five towards one doesn't itself constitute an infringement a violation of the one-track workers rights that's the crucial thing so the end game the end result is going to be yes the one track worker his right to life is violated okay and there's a sense in which when bystander flips the switch that bystander does wrong does wrong to the one and that makes like clear common sense doesn't it bystander killed him and according to morality something wrong happened to him then all things being equal right he's an innocent person he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time you see so thompson here she says a wrong has happened and she puts in italics to him to the one track worker his right to life has been violated but it's a complex moral situation does that make sense so it was permissible in that case to do this wrong to the one trolley track worker why because it's permissible in some cases to avert burden catastrophe disaster to the many to redirect it to the few morality tells us that and so what's what's going to come down to is the means that are taken to bringing about the wrong thing in question the killing of an innocent in this case that makes sense okay so then if you think about then the original trolley case the same thing is true there the one trolley track worker who who we can direct the trolley to putting him in danger put him in in a catastrophic circumstance put him in that tough circumstance we can do that we wrong him we violated his right to life but we can do so because we're averting a catastrophe to the many or the five in the case okay good so now taking a step back and thinking about things in a big picture way so but kind of in some sense abstracting away a bit from the thompson and seeing and trying to see this some of the aspects of her paper from more of a bird's eye view big picture view original trolley gives us reason to think that morality permits us in some cases to redirect a burden of danger catastrophe away from the many towards the few there there are likely theoretical reasons for this that's what you know thompson's after right but the case shows us that obviously it's a cooked up kind of case but we could imagine and think about cases that have actually happened where morally speaking redirecting danger from the many to the few the many to the one is morally okay acceptable despite the fact that we do something wrong to an individual the individual or individuals that make up the few who have been killed or otherwise harmed in order to avert catastrophe to the many or the five so the utilitarian explanation for this moral permission just going back to the original trolley case fails as is as a scene by thinking about transplants right the killer versus letting die explanation for this moral permission fails as anything about bystander or perhaps even before you before you get to thinking about the killer killing versus letting die especially but you just might say and yes thompson does earlier in the paper that the killing versus the name dye principle just doesn't apply in this case because it's killing versus kill or killing yeah killing versus killing either option there have been some though and i i note this on this slide because there are some who have wanted to respond by saying that it is a case of killing brazilian diet because the default direction is to go um is is for the is for the trolley to kill the five you see so some do want to make that move so to cover some additional bases here i include um this point about killing versus letting die and it's like the explanation in relation to the original trolley case okay and then the kantian formula of humanity explanation for this more permission fails as a scene by thinking about the loop case okay it's just false utilitarianism is false like kanti informing humanity is false okay the killing versus the indict principle if it applies isn't going to work because we have to we have the bystander case that counts against it and then we could under our breath saying there are countless other cases which show that the killing versus indict principle might not have the generality that is adherents think thompson has a paper on killing versus letting die if you're interested you could do a jstor search it should be there on the cal poly jstor database so then thompson's solution is the correct explanation involves thinking about rights we already know that what morally permits redirecting burdens dangers catastrophes away from the many towards the few again in cases where such redirections are morally permissible and thompson thinks that they're going to be cases that are clear to us where such redirections are morally permissible but they're not always going to be obvious to us they're going to be cases where we're not sure that's a virtue she thinks of her solution as it turns out ethics is hard there will be lots of cases where we don't know what the right answer is whether or not our principle or our solutions apply so again to continue it's grounded in the means that are taken essentially directions if the mean successful redirections involve no constitutive right rights violations to the few towards whom the burdens dangerous catastrophes are directed then such redirections are morally permissible so again i'm trying to put the if then sort of claim in the reverse that she originally presented it by putting the if right out front if so more precisely if it's not morally required of us that we let a burden descend out of the blue onto the five when we can make it instead descend onto one if we can make it descend onto one on to the one by means which do not themselves constitute infringements or violations of the rights of the ones this is another one of those passages you can hang your hat on if you're sort of getting lost in some of the details in the paper the more precisely it's not only required of us that we let an avalanche kill the five right think about like people just going for going for a hike and an avalanche is about to smash them it's not more than part of us that we let an avalanche smash and kill the five when we can make it instead to send that same avalanche onto the one suppose we have some mechanical means of of doing so at our disposal if we can make it descend onto the one by means so we should not themselves constitute infringements of rights of the one and she she italicizes the if here she doesn't make it a necessary condition she doesn't say only if she says if so it's a sufficient condition as we say in philosophy as we say in logic okay so don't confuse the if with an alt with don't give use if with and only if and don't confuse the if with an if and only if so it's sufficient that it's enough right that if we can if we can um push the avalanche redirect the avalanche away from the five to the one without um thereby violating any of the rights of the one then it follows that right it's not morally required that we allow the avalanche to smash and kill the five you see so that's just a different way putting thompson's point and i'm hoping that by seeing the articulations in different ways you'll be able to grasp the concept and the solution better so again it's another one these patches you can come back to i think it'd be helpful okay so that's that's what i have for the um for the thompson your solution for this time any questions or comments um issues lingering from what i said there there's one last thing i want to do after um after dealing with the this trolliology stuff the the lecture portion which i want to give you an opportunity to um discuss this if you wanted to um i if you don't if you're good then i'll move on and there might be um there might be a better way of getting some discussion going by bringing up some practice questions i wrote up we have a writing assignment posted next week so it's good if we start thinking about some of the kinds of questions you would see on the assignment so um i have on this this word document hopefully you can see it all okay a little bit bigger for you um multiple choice questions and some true false questions i want to give you some samples of a or other of essay questions or the written responses i'm going to have you guys do with rubrics so you have a sense of what to expect when the first writing assignment is posted i didn't get to those this time but i'll i'll send out some samples this weekend um likely on saturday and then we can discuss them if you like first thing on tuesday's lecture okay so for now let me just introduce the multiple choice questions and what they'll look like roughly and then what the true false will look like okay so uh multiple choice questions so here are the instructions the prompts below may have more than one correct answer select all the correct answers so if you don't select all the correct answers then points will be marked off for not doing so um hopefully that's clear in the instructions now you might ask why would i do that to you why would i have more than one possible correct answer one reason i do this is because it gives students the opportunity to get partial credit so if you're doing an assignment with 100 points and you get you know four or five multiple choice questions and you know the topic but you just mess up there's only one there's only one correct answer then there's no room for partial credit you just get all five points off for whatever it is there's more than one correct answer you can get partial credit so that's one of the main reasons for that okay so don't let that throw you off just go through each of the options carefully knowing that it could be one of the correct ones i think multiple choices we think about like this it really just is a kind of way of presenting a true false question right is a true is b true is c true on the basis of the setup of the prompt yeah and that could be a helpful way of thinking about multiple choice questions so let's do number one an example of a non-utilitarian principle discussed in lecture is we're going to give you um you know 10 seconds or so to answer these so a it is better to kill than till i die maybe i should read the options first before i give you time a is better to kill than let die b is better to let die and then to kill c it is right to treat humanity as an end in itself unless doing so results unless overall happiness and not treating humanity as none in itself or d all the above so say 10 seconds and i'll and then i'll give you the opportunity if you just want to shout out the answer answers plural okay and time anybody want to shout it out or them some b out c okay we got b and c anybody else anything different the right answer i thought it was just b just b right answer is b right answer is b um so certainly um it's better to kill that i wasn't one of their principles right that's goes that's the reverse of a b the opposite of b um this is just the killing versus and die principle okay um and then c is not the formula of humanity even though it might look like it may look like it at first because the formula humanity has nothing to do with um [Music] happiness being promoted another thinking about it is the form of humanity holds even if on balance unhappiness results because the kantian principle of humanity the form of humanity is not a utilitarian principle so we're thinking about it is given that we always have to live up to the formula of humanity even if living up to the form of humanity ends up leading to on balance more more unhappiness than happiness even quite a bit more right it we still have to move to the formula of humanity we still have to treat people as if as if they have absolute moral worth okay so yeah so b was the only right answer another thing to um so maybe a couple things one thing to note here is obviously i'm testing on non-utilitarian principle that we talked about but also this bit about discussion and lecture is important so you're going to see questions multiple choice questions maybe true false questions that that may have components that deal with keeping you honest for keeping up with the course material so that's why you've got to discuss in lecture a bit so there could be a principle here that's non-utilitarian but it wasn't discussed in lecture that's a possibility likewise there could be reading questions so i want to make sure that reading is happening it'll be about something big picture that happened in the reading that you would get if you read it carefully not minutia that's covered in in the in the reading so just questions like these to kind of keep you honest we'll be on weekly assignments or on the writing assignments excuse me and then maybe just a couple of more things about um why c isn't true if if what i said earlier wasn't helpful or helpful enough so um according to the formula of humanity it's all it's it's always right um to avoid treating um any human being as a slave even if for whatever reason however wonky the scenario is treating an individual as a slave would promote more happiness does that make sense like a logical space like imagine like a scenario in which if we just slave this one individual in society everyone will everyone will be made happier suppose it's a small society or something like that that makes sense the form of humanity says even in that situation well more happiness would come from enslaving someone still applies so we can't enslave the individual in question okay number two thompson argues all things being equal morality permits killing the one track worker and original trolley even though the trolley was directed at the five-track workers b all things being equal morality permits killing the one track worker and bystander even though the trolley was directed at the five-track workers c all things being equal morality permits killing the poorly felon footbridge and d all the above so maybe take 10 seconds give everyone a chance to think about it okay anybody want to shout it out w bashful a and b a b is right a b is right okay so remember all things being equal morality doesn't permit killing the points on the footbridge case because the means taken right to um direct danger away from the five to the one the poorly fella involves violating poorly fellas rights he has to be shoved or otherwise thrown off a footbridge okay okay and then a and b just dropped out of thinking about the original trolley and bystander case bernie thompson anyways so know what i'm asking is what thompson argues not what you may think okay thinking about conclusion that thompson has so keep that in mind when i'm asking you these questions there will be opportunities in the written responses to offer you know your opinions and to justify them using the freight using some of the theoretical tools that i'm going to help you develop in your writing and thinking okay so true or false so each prompt is either true or false if part of a prompt is false then it's entirely so it's entirely false all answers require justification for the truth value provided so that terminology throws you off here just keep this in mind they're true truth values true or false so this is just to let you know that when you evaluate a prompt i need to see true or false um so it just can't be assumed that the justification that you write is going to tell me whether or not you intend true or false justifications are to be written in complete sentences at least 50 words so when the assignments they have minimum word requirements they'll be um partly worked out here in true and false i'm thinking about adding maybe a justification to multiple choice but i haven't got there yet but the true false definitely the goal there the reason for that is is to avoid luck and then also to be able to get partial credit once again um because sometimes justification can be really good even if even if the wrong truth value is given and that can get you some um get you some partial credit um typically what will happen is if if um if say a true false question is worth 10 points then what i'll do is um if you get the wrong truth value there's five points off and then if you give me good justification then you'll get five points justification is really awesome then you might get more so getting the correct truth value would uh does matter um so looking at three thompson uses the bystander case to show that const formative humanity fails to explain the moral difference between original trolley and transplant so maybe take a couple seconds there 10 seconds okay time's up what do you say true or false okay that's false for sure and just roughly 150 words but just roughly why is it false go ahead the loop demonstration was what messed up the formula of humanity there you go that's right so that's one way of going so you could say thompson uses a loop case and then you're thinking well how do i get to 50 words well tell me a little bit about the loop case right something like that um another way of going here could be to round out just another possibility would be thompson uses the bystander case to show that the killing versus letting die principle right doesn't hold with the generality right it doesn't explain the world between original trolley and transplant so you can go that route and then tell me a little bit more about how that works 50 words comes up quickly when you're trying to justify and you could always go over in words don't worry about that okay it's just that um do your best to avoid um what's unnecessary so if you're going if you're if you're going to be writing 150 words make sure it's relevant it's alien so you're not just giving a bunch of words so i have to kind of you know comb through what you wrote to find the correct answer in there does that make sense okay because you could get points off for that um so try to focus your answers to responding directly to the prompt when there's a whole lot else that's there sometimes what's going on is um students don't know what um they don't know how to directly respond to the problems they just put a bunch of material out there and hope that some of what they wrote is correct okay i'm looking for like direct responses number four thompson claims that there's no moral difference between bystander and transplant the thing about those cases her argument for this claim is that in both cases the means to directing danger away from the five towards the one do not themselves violate the rights of the one so take ten seconds all right true or false class true okay so we've got true anybody say anything different false false i think false okay yeah it's false anybody want to just roughly not in 50 words you don't have to do 50 words roughly want to say why it's false i think isn't it because in the god i'm trying to in the transplant case um the healthy patient has having their rights violated by basically being forced to give away their organs while in the bystander case it's not as if the the person is still having their rights violated but it isn't in the means of it's only through the means of of pulling the lever if i'm correct so yeah the means toward redirecting the danger to the one yeah it means redirecting the danger yeah yeah you got it so so um in other words there is a moral difference between bystander transplant case and then you offer the justification just offers you see and that gets you to 50 words in no time okay that or you could um you know challenge the second claim two couldn't you only in the one case is it the case that the means of directing danger away from the five towards the one does not itself violate the rights of the one or the means yet do not themselves value the rights of the one right and then specify which one and then um say that in the other case those means don't involve the violation of the rights of the one so here's here's here's an important point that i want to note is that when when you have a prompt where there's two sentences both sentences are false it's sufficient that you ex you justify the falsity of one of the sentences only you don't have to do both so it could be sentence there could be prompts that have up to three four sentences if there's more than one sentence that's um that's false just pick one if you want and explain why it's false and there you go that makes sense you don't have to do everything because that's likely to get you over the 50 words that you're well over the 50 words so i want you know i don't want anyone to feel obligated to do over the 50 words so what i'll do when i um write up the writing assignment um in the instructions i'll have that included so so you don't forget but um any anything i can help with questions comments concerns hopefully this um was helpful to see some sample questions and again i'll be um sending out some practice written response questions this weekend okay so if you're good then hang in there um wish you all well and i have office hours starting in a little bit feel free to stop by if not then i'll see you all on uh tuesday thanks for coming and be well thank you professor thank you thank you thank you