Agents, Impartiality, and the Priority of Claims over Duties: Diagnosing Why Thomson Still Gets the Trolley Problem Wrong by Appeal to the “Mechanics of Claims” [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (4):545-571 (2012)
Judith Jarvis Thomson recently argued that it is impermissible for a bystander to turn a runaway trolley from five onto one. But she also argues that a trolley driver is required to do just that. We believe that her argument is flawed in three important ways. She fails to give proper weight to (a) an agent¹s claims not to be required to act in ways he does not want to, (b) impartiality in the weighing of competing patient-claims, and (c) the role of patient-claims in determining agent-duties. All three of these failures can be understood in terms of what we call the Mechanics of Claims, an approach we develop for identifying and balancing competing claims in determining rights. Using that framework, one can see both why Thomson's most recent argument is mistaken, and how to think more clearly about deontological choices generally
|Keywords||Impartiality Duties Trolley Problem Rights Agents and Patients|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Helen Frowe (2015). II—Claim Rights, Duties, and Lesser-Evil Justifications. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 89 (1):267-285.
Similar books and articles
Alec D. Walen & David Wasserman, A Reply to Thomson on 'Turning the Trolley'; a Case Study Illustrating the Importance of a Hohfeldian Analysis of the 'Mechanics' of Rights.
Ezio Di Nucci (2012). Self-Sacrifice and the Trolley Problem. Philosophical Psychology 26 (5):662-672.
Alec D. Walen & David Wasserman, The Mechanics of Hohfeldian Rights, Featuring a Case Study of Judith Jarvis Thomson on the Trolley Problem.
Bryce Huebner & Marc D. Hauser (2011). Moral Judgments About Altruistic Self-Sacrifice: When Philosophical and Folk Intuitions Clash. Philosophical Psychology 24 (1):73-94.
Greg Janzen (2011). On Three Arguments Against Endurantism. Metaphysica 12 (2):101-115.
Judith Jarvis Thomson (1976). Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem. The Monist 59 (2):204-217.
Carlo Penco (2007). Idiolect and Context. In L. E. Hahn (ed.), Library of Living Philosphers: the Philosophy of Michael Dummett. Open Court
Peter J. Lewis (2010). Probability in Everettian Quantum Mechanics. Manuscrito 33 (1):285--306.
Judith Jarvis Thomson (2008). Turning the Trolley. Philosophy and Public Affairs 36 (4):359-374.
M. J. Zimmerman (2006). Risk, Rights, and Restitution. Philosophical Studies 128 (2):285 - 311.
Stephen Winter (2010). Against Posthumous Rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (2):186-199.
David Alm (2011). Promises, Rights and Claims. Law and Philosophy 30 (1):51-76.
Peter Jones (1998). Political Theory and Cultural Diversity. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1 (1):28-62.
Added to index2012-11-30
Total downloads47 ( #101,681 of 1,932,526 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #271,972 of 1,932,526 )
How can I increase my downloads?