The Trolley Problem Summary

1. In The Trolley Problem by Thomson she says that she feels a bystander may intervene in a situation such as the trolley problem. She believes if they don’t intervene they aren’t causing the men any harm by not throwing the switch. However, she argues that the driver of the trolley does cause harm if he does not throw the switch. Her feelings lead her to an incorrect conclusion because there is no difference in the intentions or means of the bystander and the driver. If the bystander sees the trolley coming and chooses not to pull the switch they do no harm because they don’t intend the harm that is to come to the 5 men at the end of the track, which is their death. Contrary to what Thomson argues, the driver of the trolley also does no harm because he is not the cause or means of the harm. He did not rig the trolley to stop functioning properly so that he could have an excuse and ram into the men to kill them. Nor did he intend to kill them or be in the trolley that ran into them, it was just by chance. He

neither intended or was the means to the harm, just like the bystander so therefore they both did no harm. The position whether physically on the trolley, or watching from aside does not affect the means or intentions of the actions so therefore it cannot have a distinct difference in the morality of the cases.

2.

In The Trolley Problem Revisited, Costa says he feels that Double Effect justifies some evil means in order to bring about a good action. By using this belief, he argues that the killing of F in the trolley case is morally justified by double effect because the evil means, the killing, is justified in order to save the lives of the 5 men. In this sense, Costa’s feelings prevent him from seeing that the point of Double Effect is that unintended side effects are morally okay to get to a good action. Double Effect, does not, as Costa suggests, condone using evil means and therefore he is wrong in his interpretation of the morality of the Trolley Problem. Double Effect allows for the trolley problem to be morally permissible because the death of F is an unintended side effect to the means of turning the trolley by flipping the switch that comes about with trying to save the lives of the men, which is the intention and therefore the act is morally

permissible.

3. In Fischer’s article he writes that he feels as if Double Effect is not a satisfactory solution to the moral issues. He cites that he believes it causes false judgements and discusses two cases which he believes show Double Effect’s shortcomings. He says that Double Effect prohibits an abortion caused by crushing the skull of the fetus, but condones a mother taking medication that would kill the fetus. However, his judgements about these cases are wrong and therefore his belief that Double Effect cannot be used to identify moral issues is also faulty. He makes it seem that the logic between these cases isn’t clear or correct, but really it is. The abortion is prohibited because it goes against the basic good of life. There is no good in that situation, only the harm that is caused to the fetus. Whereas, the mother is allowed to take the fever reducing drug because the intent in that situation is to save her life and protect her health. What Fischer is missing about double effect is that it is based off the intent of the action and the means used to carry it out. Therefore, Fisher is wrong in that Double Effect is not a solution for moral situations because he is misinformed about the concepts of Double Effect.