Would You Kill the Fat Man (23 page)

Figure 6.
Extra Push.
The trolley is heading toward the five men who will die if you do nothing. You can turn the trolley onto a loop away from the five men. On this loop is a single man. But the trolley is traveling at such a pace that it would jump over the one man on the side track unless given an extra push. If it jumped over this man, it would loop back and kill the five. The only way to guarantee that it crashes into the man is to give it an extra push. Should you turn the trolley, and should you also give it the extra push?

Figure 7.
Two Loop.
The trolley is heading toward five men who will die if you do nothing. You can redirect the trolley onto an empty loop. If you took no further action, the trolley would rattle around this loop and kill the five. However, you could redirect the trolley a second time down a second loop that does have one person on it. This would kill the person on the track but save the five lives. Should you redirect the trolley, not once, but twice?

Figure 8.
Tractor Man.
The runaway trolley is heading toward five innocents. The trolley is not the only thing they’re threatened by. They are also about to be flattened by another, independent, threat. Rampaging in their direction is an out-of-control tractor. To redirect the trolley would be pointless if the five were in any case to be hit by the tractor. But if you turn the trolley away from them, it will gently hit and push, without hurting, another person into the path of the tractor. His being hit by the tractor would stop that vehicle but also kill him. Should you redirect the trolley?

Figure 9.
The Tumble Case.
The runaway trolley is heading toward five people. You cannot redirect the trolley, but you can move the five. But if you did that, the five would tumble down a mountain and, although they themselves would be unharmed, their body weight would kill an innocent person below. Should you move the five?

Figure 10.
The Trap Door.
The runaway trolley is heading toward five people. You are standing by the side of the track. The only way to stop the trolley killing the five is to pull a lever which opens a trap door on which a fat man happens to be standing. The fat man would plummet to the ground and die, but his body would stop the trolley. Should you open the trap door?

Notes

Chapter 1: Churchill’s Dilemma

1
. Lehmann 1968, 199.

2
. Waugh 1999, 615.

3
. An ex con named Eddie Chapman.

4
. Spanish-born Juan Pujol Garcia, who convinced the Nazis that he ran a network of informers—all of whom were fictitious.

5
. Jones 1978, 423.

6
. In fact, although no more V1s would reach Britain, the Nazis were about to unleash a new long-range weapon, the V2.

Chapter 2: Spur of the Moment

1
. Foot 2002.

2
. There’s no evidence that when Philippa Foot came up with her train conundrum she knew about the World War II parallel.

3
. The term was first coined by Kwame Anthony Appiah—an act of denomination of which he’s proud.

4
. TED talk: interviewer was Chris Anderson; see
http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown_on_global_ethic_vs_national_interest.html
. TED, which stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, is an organization dedicated to the spread of worthwhile ideas.

5
. Many philosophers believe that there are special deontological constraints that apply to killing but not to unintentionally allowing people to die. My thanks to Jeff McMahan for highlighting this point. Of course, in deciding which drug to fund, a drug’s impact on the quality as well as the length of life will be relevant.

6
. See Appiah 2008, 91.

Chapter 3: The Founding Mothers

1
. Ayer returned to Oxford to spread the gospel of logical positivism. Shortly afterward—a wretched irony this—the Vienna Circle itself fell victim to the Nazi jackboot, its members scattering to Chicago, Princeton, Oxford, and elsewhere.

2
. Magee 1978, 131.

3
. Also known as “emotivism.” Emotivism is not quite the same as subjectivism, another -ism that Foot rejected. Subjectivism says that when I say “murder is wrong,” I
state
my disapproval, whereas emotivism claims that in that sentence I merely express it. It is an expression, not an assertion.

4
. The impact of ordinary language philosophy was still very much felt when I studied undergraduate and postgraduate philosophy in Oxford in the 1980s. I recall having a particularly spirited discussion with one of my tutors about the distinction between a cup and a mug.

5
. Author interview with Lesley Brown.

6
. Quoted in
The Financial Times
,
The Daily Telegraph
, and
The Independent
in obituaries of Philippa Foot published in October 2010.

7
. Midgely 2005, 52.

8
. Conradi 2001, 185.

9
. Letter to author from Daphne Stroud.

10
. Teichmann 2008, 3.

11
. Author interview with Lesley Brown.

12
. M.R.D. Foot 2008, 83.

13
. Murdoch 2010, 254–55.

14
. M.R.D. Foot 2008, 78.

15
. Murdoch 2010, 254.

16
. Conradi 2001, 223.

17
. M.R.D. Foot 2008, 130.

18
. Although Crisp (2012) argues that virtue ethics is an offshoot of deontology.

19
. According to Michael Dummett in an address at Philippa Foot’s memorial on March 19, 2011.

20
. Interview with author.

21
. Foot 2001, 1.

22
. Wittgenstein 1953, 103.

23
. According to Michael Dummett in an address at Philippa Foot’s memorial.

24
. Anscombe 1956, 5.

25
. A.F.L. Beeston, quoted in Glover 2001, 106. Beeston claims that the full house was entirely unrelated to Truman. Instead the congregation had shown up because of irritation at a plan to cut down on the use of the Greek New Testament in the theology degree. He says that “the speech elicited only the complete silence and impassivity of those present … not the slightest sign of approval or disapproval, not a murmur, not
a rustle, not a change of countenance, but only utter imperturbability.” But the claim of “utter imperturbability” seems implausible and is at odds with the media coverage.

26
.
Oxford Mail
, May 1, 1956.

27
. Anscombe told Tony Kenny that three people had supported her.

28
. Interview with author.

29
. Voorhoeve 2009, 93.

Chapter 4: The Seventh Son of Count Landulf

1
. What is it with philosophers and pokers? For more poker action, see Edmonds and Eidinow 2001.

2
. Some scholars say there is an echo of the DDE in the biblical principle of the apostle Paul in Romans 3:8. One ought not “do evil that good may come.”

3
. Interview with author.

4
. Voorhoeve 2009, 87.

5
. Foot,
Virtues and Vices
, 2002, 20. Although most of the founding fathers of trolleyology were in fact women, the language they use in their papers reflects the gender bias of its time.

6
. Discussed in Wiggins 2006, 250–51.

7
. Interview with author.

8
. Scanlon 2008, 18.

9
. Foot,
Virtues and Vices
, 2002, 21.

10
. This is an adapted version from Foot,
Virtues and Vices
, 2002, 24–25.

11
. More about this in
chapter 11
.

Chapter 5: Fat Man, Loop, and Lazy Susan

1
. Both are reproduced in Thomson 1986. They originally appeared as “Killing, Letting Die and the Trolley Problem” (
The Monist
, 1976) and “The Trolley Problem” (
Yale Law Journal
94, 1985).

2
. Jeff McMahan pointed out to me that if the fat man throws himself off the bridge he would be using himself—in Kantian language—as a mere means to an end. A problem with Kant’s view is that it seems to condemn self-sacrifice; yet no philosopher—Kantian or otherwise—wants to say that it is impermissible to kill oneself intentionally for the sake of others.

3
. Also in Thomson 1986.

4
. Thomson 1986, 108.

5
. Thomson 1986, 108.

6
. Frances Kamm.

7
. Kamm 2007, 24.

8
. Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) was a German mathematician and philosopher. The French enlightenment writer Voltaire uses his character Pangloss, in the novella
Candide
, to draw a thinly disguised parody of Leibniz.

9
. Thomson 1986, 102.

10
. It’s worth noting that Thomson has addressed the trolley problem several times, and given four quite distinct responses to it. She eventually came to believe that it was wrong to turn the trolley in Loop and, what’s more, it was even wrong to turn the trolley in Spur.

Chapter 6: Ticking Clocks and the Sage of Königsberg

1
. Quoted in
International Herald Tribune
, April 11, 2003.

2
. Quoted in
Washington Post
, March 8, 2003.

3
. Quoted in
New York Times
, April 11, 2003.

4
. Quoted on
Deutsche Welle
web page, February 24, 2003.

5
. Naturally this required an ignorant or at least partial misreading of Kant. The Categorical Imperative has a golden rule formulation: only act in a certain way if you could will it that all people act in this way. Eichmann believed that the Categorical Imperative only required a person’s actions to coincide with a general law—regardless of the moral content of this law.