Deck 55: Turning the Trolley Judith Jarvis Thomson

Question 1

A "ceteris paribus" principle is of what sort?

A) Other things being equal
B) Subjective
C) One without exceptions
D) All things considered

Answer 1

A

Question 2

In the "Bystander's Three Options" case, Thomson adds a new option to the trolley case, so that the bystander can

A) kill everyone.
B) sacrifice himself to save everyone.
C) save everyone including himself.
D) blow up the trolley.

Answer 2

B

Question 3

In the "Bystander's Three Options" case, Thomson hopes her readers will

A) agree that the bystander should not kill the one to save the five.
B) agree that the bystander should kill the one to save the five.
C) agree that the bystander is morally obligated to kill himself before he kills another to save five.
D) avoid trolleys.

Answer 3

C

Question 4

In "Bystander's Three Options," Thomson argues that the bystander may not permissibly kill one worker to save five because:

A) he is obligated to let nature run its course.
B) all lives are equally valuable and cannot be weighed against one another.
C) he must not kill another to save lives if he can do so by killing himself instead.
D) killing is unconditionally wrong.

Question 5

In the "Bystander's Three Options" case, option (iii) is sacrificing oneself to save the five workers. Thomson says that option (iii) is

A) morally required.
B) not permissible.
C) a good deed, but not morally required.
D) a ceteris paribus principle.

Question 6

In "Bystander's Three Options," Thomson believes that the permissible option is

A) turn the trolley to sacrifice oneself or turn the trolley to kill one worker.
B) turn the trolley to sacrifice oneself or let the trolley run straight to kill five workers.
C) turn the trolley to kill one worker or let the trolley run straight to kill five workers.
D) turn the trolley to sacrifice oneself, which is the only permissible option.

Question 7

If you want to save the five workers but don't want to sacrifice yourself, you can take option (ii) and turn the trolley toward the one worker. What does Thomson say about this option?

A) It's not quite as noble as self-sacrifice would be but is still a morally permissible choice.
B) It's an unacceptable choice; you are making someone else pay the price for your good deed, because you don't feel like paying it yourself.
C) It's just as good as sacrificing yourself; you are still saving five lives and costing only one life.
D) It's fine because you still have good intentions of saving lives.

Question 8

The "Bystander's Three Options" case is intended to make a point about the original trolley problem. What is it supposed to show?

A) It is not morally acceptable to kill one person to save five unless one is prepared to sacrifice oneself first.
B) It is better to sacrifice oneself than to sacrifice another person.
C) Good intentions don't always mean that your actions are good.
D) Turning the trolley to save the five people is morally permissible.

Question 9

Thomson would likely agree most that to perform a good deed, one must

A) personally pay the price if possible.
B) believe others would also perform that good deed.
C) know the outcome with certainty.
D) Both a and b

Question 10

In the original trolley paper (chapter 54), Thomson contrasts the trolley case with the surgeon case. In that paper, she argues that in the trolley case, many believe it is okay to kill one person to save five, but they believe that it is not okay to make the same trade-off in the surgeon case. What would Thomson now say about the trolley case versus the surgeon case?

A) The trolley case is still different from the surgeon case; no change.
B) The trolley case is even more different from the surgeon case than she thought.
C) The trolley case is more similar to the surgeon case than she thought.
D) Not enough evidence to know what Thomson would think.

Question 11

In this paper, Thomson changes the point of view in the trolley case so that we imagine ourselves as a bystander instead of as the trolley driver.

Question 12

In the "Bystander's Two Options" case, the choices are to kill one worker or sacrifice oneself.

Question 13

The two moral principles Thomson introduces are of the form "ceteris paribus" because they apply only to cases in which lives are at stake.

Question 14

Thomson argues in "Bystander's Three Options" that it is unacceptable to choose to kill one worker instead of sacrificing oneself.

Question 15

Thomson argues that the bystander must choose to sacrifice himself.

Question 16

Thomson argues that if sacrificing your own life is not an option, you must allow the five workers to die unless you would be willing to sacrifice your own first.

Question 17

Thomson believes that turning the trolley toward the one worker is making that person "pay the cost" of your good deed.

Question 18

Thomson claims that morality requires us to sacrifice our lives when doing so will save five others.

Question 19

Thomson thinks most would not sacrifice their own lives to save five others.

Question 20

If it is not possible to sacrifice oneself to save five, Thomson accepts that one may permissibly sacrifice another for this altruistic purpose.

Question 21

In the "Bystander's Three Options" case, what do you think the bystander should do? Do you think the bystander must sacrifice herself? Is it okay for the bystander to choose for the other person to die instead? Why or why not?

Question 22

Explain how Thomson's intuitions about the trolley case are different now that an option for self-sacrifice is added to the case. What is her answer to the trolley case now that she has considered it in this light? Do you agree with her new analysis? Why or why not?

Question 23

Can you think of other cases where you might have to sacrifice one person to save five other people's lives? Write up a case similar to the "Bystander's Two Options" in which you have the option to let one person die to save the lives of five others. Could you ever be justified in sacrificing a person to save the lives of others?

Question 24

Would Thomson's analysis of the case differ if the bystander could communicate with the others involved? Would it, for example, matter if the bystander had permission to divert the track? How might the possibility of communication change the analysis?

Question 25

After reflecting on the cases, and how you would act, consider what you would say to the family members of those who die. Suppose Thomson would herself take option (i) doing nothing and letting the five die. What should she say to the family members of the five who die? Should we even consider how we would explain our actions to others after the fact? Or is that morally irrelevant?