Culpability and Penitence: The Intrinsic Morality of the Trolley Problem
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v11i3.3007Keywords:
Trolley Problem, Ethics, TeenagersAbstract
The trolley problem is uniquely illuminating in the world of moral philosophy, and it is relevant to all three schools of ethics: deontological ethics, virtue ethics, and consequentialist ethics. Numerous researchers have written at length about trolley problem variations and real-world applications of ethical dilemmas, but there is a paucity of research pertaining to the worldviews of teenagers in particular; most of the existing literature on trolleyology focuses on the inclinations of adults. The findings of this teenage-centered project suggest that, in a trolleyological context, teenagers are more strongly utilitarian than adults are. Further research can be done to broaden the scope of the topic and ascertain the unique factors that contribute to juvenile morality.
Downloads
References or Bibliography
Bleich, J. David. “Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: SACRIFICING THE FEW TO SAVE THE MANY.” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, vol. 43, no. 1, 2010, pp. 78–86. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23263822. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Bleske-Rechek, April, et al. “APA PsycNet.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0099295.
Bruers, Stijn, and Johan Braeckman. “A Review and Systematization of the Trolley Problem - Philosophia.” SpringerLink, Springer Netherlands, 12 Nov. 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-013-9507-5.
Carter, Stacy M. “Overdiagnosis, Ethics, and Trolley Problems: Why Factors Other than Outcomes Matter—an Essay by Stacy Carter.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, vol. 358, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3872. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Creswell, John W., and J. David Creswell. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc, 2018.
Crockett, Molly. “The Trolley Problem: Would You Kill One Person to Save Many Others?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 12 Dec. 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2016/dec/12/the-trolley-problem-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-many-others.
Etzioni, Amitai, and Oren Etzioni. “Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence.” The Journal of Ethics, vol. 21, no. 4, 2017, pp. 403–418, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-017-9252-2. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Fried, Barbara H. “WHAT ‘DOES’ MATTER? THE CASE FOR KILLING THE TROLLEY PROBLEM (OR LETTING IT DIE).” The Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 248, 2012, pp. 505–529., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00061.x. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Huang, Bert I. “LAW AND MORAL DILEMMAS.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 130, no. 2, 2016, pp. 659–699., www.jstor.org/stable/44072388. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Huebner, Bryce, and Mark D. Hauser. “Moral Judgments about Altruistic Self-Sacrifice: When Philosophical and Folk Intuitions Clash.” Taylor & Francis, 13 Feb. 2011, https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2010.534447.
Leedy, Paul D., et al. Practical Research: Planning and Design. Pearson, 2021.
LIAO, S. MATTHEW. “INTENTIONS AND MORAL PERMISSIBILITY: THE CASE OF ACTING PERMISSIBLY WITH BAD INTENTIONS.” Law and Philosophy, vol. 31, no. 6, 2012, pp. 703–724, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9134-5. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Masek, Lawrence. “INTENTIONS, MOTIVES AND THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), vol. 60, no. 240, 2010, pp. 567–585, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.633.x. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Nyholm, Sven, and Jilles Smids. “The Ethics of Accident-Algorithms for Self-Driving Cars: an Applied Trolley Problem?” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 19, no. 5, 2016, pp. 1275–1289, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-016-9745-2. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Patashnik, Jeremy. “THE TROLLEY PROBLEM OF CLIMATE CHANGE: SHOULD GOVERNMENTS FACE TAKINGS LIABILITY IF ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES CAUSE PROPERTY DAMAGE?” Columbia Law Review, vol. 119, no. 5, 2019, pp. 1273–1310. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26650739. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Rai, Tage S., and Keith J. Holyoak. “Moral Principles or Consumer Preferences? Alternative Framings of the Trolley Problem.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 11 Dec. 2009, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01088.x.
Rodin, David. “Justifying Harm.” Ethics, vol. 122, no. 1, 2011, pp. 74–110, https://doi.org/10.1086/662295. Accessed 10 Sept. 2021.
Dobrin, Arthur. “3 Approaches to Ethics: Principles, Outcomes and Integrity.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 18 May 2012, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/am-i-right/201205/3-approaches-ethics-principles-outcomes-and-integrity.
Young-Jin Choi, FRSA. “10 Variations of the Trolley Problem to Explain the Difference between Climate Action and Inaction.” LinkedIn, LinkedIn, 18 May 2021, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-variations-trolley-problem-explain-difference-young-jin-choi-frsa.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 Xueyi Lu; Kerry Catlin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright holder(s) granted JSR a perpetual, non-exclusive license to distriute & display this article.
