Search results for 'trolley problem' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Alessandro Lanteri, Chiara Chelini & Salvatore Rizzello (2008). An Experimental Investigation of Emotions and Reasoning in the Trolley Problem. Journal of Business Ethics 83 (4):789 - 804.score: 240.0
    Elaborating on the notions that humans possess different modalities of decision-making and that these are often influenced by moral considerations, we conducted an experimental investigation of the Trolley Problem. We presented the participants with two standard scenarios (‹lever’ and ‹stranger’) either in the usual or in reversed order. We observe that responses to the lever scenario, which result from (moral) reasoning, are affected by our manipulation; whereas responses to the stranger scenario, triggered by moral emotions, are unaffected. Furthermore, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Alec Walen & David Wasserman (2012). 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”. [REVIEW] Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (4):545-571.score: 216.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Stijn Bruers & Johan Braeckman (2014). A Review and Systematization of the Trolley Problem. Philosophia 42 (2):251-269.score: 192.0
    The trolley problem, first described by Foot (1967) and Thomson (The Monist, 59, 204–217, 1976), is one of the most famous and influential thought experiments in deontological ethics. The general story is that a runaway trolley is threatening the lives of five people. Doing nothing will result in the death of those persons, but acting in order to save those persons would unavoidably result in the death of another, sixth person. It appears that, depending on the situation, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Ezio Di Nucci (2012). Self-Sacrifice and the Trolley Problem. Philosophical Psychology 26 (5):662-672.score: 180.0
    Judith Jarvis Thomson has recently proposed a new argument for the thesis that killing the one in the Trolley Problem is not permissible. Her argument relies on the introduction of a new scenario, in which the bystander may also sacrifice herself to save the five. Thomson argues that those not willing to sacrifice themselves if they could may not kill the one to save the five. Bryce Huebner and Marc Hauser have recently put Thomson's argument to empirical test (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Natalie Gold, Andrew Colman & Briony Pulford (2014). Cultural Differences in Responses to Real-Life and Hypothetical Trolley Problems. Judgment and Decision Making 9 (1):65-76.score: 160.0
    Trolley problems have been used in the development of moral theory and the psychological study of moral judgments and behavior. Most of this research has focused on people from the West, with implicit assumptions that moral intuitions should generalize and that moral psychology is universal. However, cultural differences may be associated with differences in moral judgments and behavior. We operationalized a trolley problem in the laboratory, with economic incentives and real-life consequences, and compared British and Chinese samples (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Michael Otsuka (2008). Double Effect, Triple Effect and the Trolley Problem: Squaring the Circle in Looping Cases. Utilitas 20 (1):92-110.score: 156.0
    In the Trolley Case (Figure 1), as devised by Philippa Foot and modified by Judith Jarvis Thomson, a runaway trolley (i.e. tram) is headed down a main track and will hit and kill five unless you divert it onto a side track, where it will hit and kill one.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Guido Pincione (2007). The Trolley Problem as a Problem for Libertarians. Utilitas 19 (4):407-429.score: 156.0
    Many political libertarians argue, or assume, that negative moral duties (duties not to harm others) prevail over positive moral duties (duties to aid others), and that the legal system ought to reflect such pre-eminence. I call into question this strategy for defending a libertarian order. I start by arguing that a successful account of the well-known case of a runaway trolley that is about to kill five innocents unless a passer-by diverts it onto one innocent, killing him, should point (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Judith Jarvis Thomson (1976). Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem. The Monist 59 (2):204-217.score: 150.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Michael Gorr (1990). Thomson and the Trolley Problem. Philosophical Studies 59 (1):91 - 100.score: 150.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Michael Otsuka, Double-Effect, Triple-Effect, and the Trolley Problem.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Margery Bedford Naylor (1988). The Moral of the Trolley Problem. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48 (4):711-722.score: 150.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Alec D. Walen & David Wasserman, The Mechanics of Hohfeldian Rights, Featuring a Case Study of Judith Jarvis Thomson on the Trolley Problem.score: 150.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Barbara H. Fried (2012). What Does Matter? The Case for Killing the Trolley Problem (Or Letting It Die). Philosophical Quarterly 62 (248):505-529.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Michael J. Costa (1986). The Trolley Problem Revisited. Southern Journal of Philosophy 24 (4):437-449.score: 150.0
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. B. C. Postow (1989). Thomson and the Trolley Problem. Southern Journal of Philosophy 27 (4):529-537.score: 150.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. C. L. Sheng (1995). A Suggested Solution to the Trolley Problem. Journal of Social Philosophy 26 (1):203-217.score: 150.0
  17. Adam Kolber (2009). The Organ Conscription Trolley Problem. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (8):13-14.score: 150.0
  18. Andrew Fiala (2014). Pacifism and the Trolley Problem. Acorn 15 (1):33-41.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. F. M. Kamm (2013). Trolley Problem. In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Tage S. Rai & Keith J. Holyoak (2010). Moral Principles or Consumer Preferences? Alternative Framings of the Trolley Problem. Cognitive Science 34 (2):311-321.score: 150.0
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Joshua D. Greene, D. Lindsell, A. C. Clarke, L. E. Nystrom & J. D. Cohen (forthcoming). What Pushes Your Moral Buttons? Modular Myopia and the Trolley Problem. Cognition.score: 150.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Robert Hallborg (1997). Comparing Harms: The Lesser-Evil Defense and the Trolley Problem. Legal Theory 3 (4):291-316.score: 150.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Anna Gotlib (forthcoming). Beyond the Trolley Problem: Narrative Pedagogy in the Philosophy Classroom. In Feminist Pedagogy in Higher Education: Critical Theory and Practice. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Natalie Gold, Briony Pulford & Andrew Colman (2013). Your Money Or Your Life: Comparing Judgements In Trolley Problems Involving Economic And Emotional Harms, Injury And Death. Economics and Philosophy 29 (02):213-233.score: 144.0
    There is a long-standing debate in philosophy about whether it is morally permissible to harm one person in order to prevent a greater harm to others and, if not, what is the moral principle underlying the prohibition. Hypothetical moral dilemmas are used in order to probe moral intuitions. Philosophers use them to achieve a reflective equilibrium between intuitions and principles, psychologists to investigate moral decision-making processes. In the dilemmas, the harms that are traded off are almost always deaths. However, the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Natalie Gold, Briony Pulford & Andrew Colman (2014). The Outlandish, the Realistic, and the Real: Contextual Manipulation and Agent Role Effects in Trolley Problems. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognitive Science 5.score: 124.0
    Hypothetical trolley problems are widely used to elicit moral intuitions, which are employed in the development of moral theory and the psychological study of moral judgments. The scenarios used are outlandish, and some philosophers and psychologists have questioned whether the judgments made in such unrealistic and unfamiliar scenarios are a reliable basis for theory-building. We present two experiments that investigate whether differences in moral judgment due to the role of the agent, previously found in a standard trolley scenario, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Guy Kahane (2013). The Armchair and the Trolley: An Argument for Experimental Ethics. Philosophical Studies 162 (2):421-445.score: 120.0
    Ethical theory often starts with our intuitions about particular cases and tries to uncover the principles that are implicit in them; work on the ‘trolley problem’ is a paradigmatic example of this approach. But ethicists are no longer the only ones chasing trolleys. In recent years, psychologists and neuroscientists have also turned to study our moral intuitions and what underlies them. The relation between these two inquiries, which investigate similar examples and intuitions, and sometimes produce parallel results, is (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Fiona Woollard (2014). The New Problem of Numbers in Morality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (4):631-641.score: 114.0
    Discussion of the “problem of numbers” in morality has focused almost exclusively on the moral significance of numbers in whom-to-rescue cases: when you can save either of two groups of people, but not both, does the number of people in each group matter morally? I suggest that insufficient attention has been paid to the moral significance of numbers in other types of case. According to common-sense morality, numbers make a difference in cases, like the famous Trolley Case, where (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Henrik Ahlenius & Torbjörn Tännsjö (2012). Chinese and Westerners Respond Differently to the Trolley Dilemmas. Journal of Cognition and Culture 12 (3-4):195-201.score: 102.0
    A set of moral problems known as The Trolley Dilemmas was presented to 3000 randomly selected inhabitants of the USA, Russia and China. It is shown that Chinese are significantly less prone to support utility-maximizing alternatives, as compared to the US and Russian respondents. A number of possible explanations, as well as methodological issues pertaining to the field of surveying moral judgment and moral disagreement, are discussed.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Ezio Di Nucci (forthcoming). Trolleys and Double Effect in Experimental Ethics. In Christoph Luetge, Hannes Rusch & Matthias Uhl (eds.), Experimental Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan.score: 100.0
    I analyse the relationship between the Doctrine of Double Effect and the Trolley Problem: the former offers a solution for the latter only on the premise that killing the one in Bystander at the Switch is permissible. Here I offer both empirical and theoretical arguments against the permissibility of killing the one: firstly, I present data from my own empirical studies according to which the intuition that killing the one is permissible is neither widespread nor stable; secondly, I (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Philippa Foot (1967). The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Oxford Review 5:5-15.score: 96.0
    One of the reasons why most of us feel puzzled about the problem of abortion is that we want, and do not want, to allow to the unborn child the rights that belong to adults and children. When we think of a baby about to be born it seems absurd to think that the next few minutes or even hours could make so radical a difference to its status; yet as we go back in the life of the fetus (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Ezio Di Nucci (2014). Ethics Without Intention. Bloomsbury.score: 90.0
    Ethics Without Intention tackles the questions raised by difficult moral dilemmas by providing a critical analysis of double effect and its most common ethical and political applications. The book discusses the philosophical distinction between intended harm and foreseen but unintended harm. This distinction, which, according to the doctrine of double effect, makes a difference to the moral justification of actions, is widely applied to some of the most controversial ethical and political questions of our time: collateral damages in wars and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. David R. Mandel & Oshin Vartanian (2008). Taboo or Tragic: Effect of Tradeoff Type on Moral Choice, Conflict, and Confidence. [REVIEW] Mind and Society 7 (2):215-226.score: 62.0
    Historically, cognitivists considered moral choices to be determined by analytic processes. Recent theories, however, have emphasized the role of intuitive processes in determining moral choices. We propose that the engagement of analytic and intuitive processes is contingent on the type of tradeoff being considered. Specifically, when a tradeoff necessarily violates a moral principle no matter what choice is made, as in tragic tradeoffs, its resolution should result in greater moral conflict and less confidence in choice than when the tradeoff offers (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. John T. Sanders (1988). Why the Numbers Should Sometimes Count. Philosophy and Public Affairs 17 (1):3-14.score: 60.0
    John Taurek has argued that, where choices must be made between alternatives that affect different numbers of people, the numbers are not, by themselves, morally relevant. This is because we "must" take "losses-to" the persons into account (and these don't sum), but "must not" consider "losses-of" persons (because we must not treat persons like objects). I argue that the numbers are always ethically relevant, and that they may sometimes be the decisive consideration.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. 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.score: 60.0
    In her latest writing on the trolley problem, 'Turning the Trolley,' Judith Jarvis Thomson defends the following counter-intuitive position: if confronted with a choice of allowing a trolley to hit and kill five innocent people on the track straight ahead, or turning it onto one innocent person on a side-track, a bystander must allow it to hit the five straight ahead. In contrast, Thomson claims, the driver of the trolley has a duty to turn it (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Fiery Cushman & Liane Young (2009). The Psychology of Dilemmas and the Philosophy of Morality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (1):9 - 24.score: 60.0
    We review several instances where cognitive research has identified distinct psychological mechanisms for moral judgment that yield conflicting answers to moral dilemmas. In each of these cases, the conflict between psychological mechanisms is paralleled by prominent philosophical debates between different moral theories. A parsimonious account of this data is that key claims supporting different moral theories ultimately derive from the psychological mechanisms that give rise to moral judgments. If this view is correct, it has some important implications for the practice (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Joshua May (forthcoming). Moral Judgment and Deontology: Empirical Developments. Philosophy Compass.score: 60.0
    A traditional idea has it that moral judgment involves more than calculating the consequences of actions; it also requires an assessment of the agent’s intentions, the act’s nature, and whether the agent uses another person as a means to her ends. I survey experimental developments suggesting that ordinary people often tacitly reason in terms of such deontological rules. It’s now unclear whether we should posit a traditional form of the Doctrine of Double Effect. However, further research suggests that a range (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Liane Young (2009). The Psychology of Dilemmas and the Philosophy of Morality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (1):9 - 24.score: 60.0
    We review several instances where cognitive research has identified distinct psychological mechanisms for moral judgment that yield conflicting answers to moral dilemmas. In each of these cases, the conflict between psychological mechanisms is paralleled by prominent philosophical debates between different moral theories. A parsimonious account of this data is that key claims supporting different moral theories ultimately derive from the psychological mechanisms that give rise to moral judgments. If this view is correct, it has some important implications for the practice (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. D. W. Haslett (2011). Boulders and Trolleys. Utilitas 23 (03):268-287.score: 40.0
    This discussion attempts to show that the elusive solution to the trolley problem lies hidden in the solution to another perennial problem in moral philosophy: the ducking puzzle. The key to solving the ducking puzzle is an important, but overlooked, exception to our obligation not to harm others, an exception for , which, it is argued here, is also the key to solving the trolley problem.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Joseph Mendola (2005). Consequentialism, Group Acts, and Trolleys. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (1):64–87.score: 40.0
    Its relentless pursuit of the good provides act-consequentialism with one sort of intuitive ethical rationale. But more indirect forms of consequentialism promise more intuitive normative implications, for instance the evil of even beneficent murders. I favor a middle way which combines the intuitive rationale of act-consequentialism and the intuitive normative implications of the best indirect forms. Multiple-Act Consequentialism or ‘MAC’ requires direct consequentialist evaluation of the options of group agents. It holds that one should only defect from a group act (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Ezio Di Nucci (2013). Double Effect and Terror Bombing. In T. Spitzley, M. Hoeltje & W. Spohn (eds.), GAP.8 Proceedings. GAP.score: 30.0
    I argue against the Doctrine of Double Effect’s explanation of the moral difference between terror bombing and strategic bombing. I show that the standard thought-experiment of Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber which dominates this debate is underdetermined in three crucial respects: (1) the non-psychological worlds of Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber; (2) the psychologies of Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber; and (3) the structure of the thought-experiment, especially in relation to its similarity with the Trolley Problem. (1) If (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Frances M. Kamm (2000). The Doctrine of Triple Effect and Why a Rational Agent Need Not Intend the Means to His End, I. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):21–39.score: 30.0
    In this article I am concerned with whether it could be morally significant to distinguish between doing something 'in order to bring about an effect' as opposed to 'doing something because we will bring about an effect'. For example, the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) tells us that we should not act in order to bring about evil, but even if this is true is it perhaps permissible to act only because an evil will thus occur? I discuss these questions (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Peter Singer, On the Appeal to Intuitions in Ethics.score: 30.0
    Even though it has always seemed to me so evidently erroneous, the view that we must test our normative theories against our intuitions has continued to have many adherents [...]. But now it faces its most serious challenge yet, in the form of Peter Unger's Living High and Letting Die. On one level this book is an attempt to tighten the argument I advanced in 'Famine, affluence and morality'. Unger argues that we do wrong when we fail to send (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Frances M. Kamm (1991). The Doctrine of Double Effect: Reflections on Theoretical and Practical Issues. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (5):571-585.score: 30.0
    The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Principle of Do No Harm raise important theoretical and practical issues, some of which are discussed by Boyle, Donagan, and Quinn. I argue that neither principle is correct, and some revisionist, and probably nonabsolutist, analysis of constraints on action and omission is necessary. In making these points, I examine several approaches to deflection of threat cases, discuss an argument for the permissibility of voluntary euthanasia, and present arguments relevant to medical contexts which justify (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Bryce Huebner & Marc D. Hauser (2011). Moral Judgments About Altruistic Self-Sacrifice: When Philosophical and Folk Intuitions Clash. Philosophical Psychology 24 (1):73-94.score: 30.0
    Altruistic self-sacrifice is rare, supererogatory, and not to be expected of any rational agent; but, the possibility of giving up one's life for the common good has played an important role in moral theorizing. For example, Judith Jarvis Thomson (2008) has argued in a recent paper that intuitions about altruistic self-sacrifice suggest that something has gone wrong in philosophical debates over the trolley problem. We begin by showing that her arguments face a series of significant philosophical objections; however, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Ezio Di Nucci (forthcoming). Aristotle and Double Effect. Journal of Ancient Philosophy.score: 30.0
    There are some interesting similarities between Aristotle’s ‘mixed actions’ in Book III of the Nicomachean Ethics and the actions often thought to be justifiable with the Doctrine of Double Effect. Here I analyse these similarities by comparing Aristotle’s examples of mixed actions with standard cases from the literature on double effect such as, amongst others, strategic bombing, the trolley problem, and craniotomy. I find that, despite some common features such as the dilemmatic structure and the inevitability of a (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. John M. Mikhail (2011). Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment. Cambridge University Press.score: 30.0
    Is the science of moral cognition usefully modeled on aspects of Universal Grammar? Are human beings born with an innate "moral grammar" that causes them to analyze human action in terms of its moral structure, with just as little awareness as they analyze human speech in terms of its grammatical structure? Questions like these have been at the forefront of moral psychology ever since John Mikhail revived them in his influential work on the linguistic analogy and its implications for jurisprudence (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. John Harris (2000). The Doctrine of Triple Effect and Why a Rational Agent Need Not Intend the Means to His End, II. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):41–57.score: 30.0
    In this article I am concerned with whether it could be morally significant to distinguish between doing something 'in order to bring about an effect' as opposed to 'doing something because we will bring about an effect'. For example, the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) tells us that we should not act in order to bring about evil, but even if this is true is it perhaps permissible to act only because an evil will thus occur? I discuss these questions (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Alexander Rosenberg (2000). Darwinism in Philosophy, Social Science, and Policy. Cambridge University Press.score: 30.0
    A collection of essays by Alexander Rosenberg, the distinguished philosopher of science. The essays cover three broad areas related to Darwinian thought and naturalism: the first deals with the solution of philosophical problems such as reductionism, the second with the development of social theories, and the third with the intersection of evolutionary biology with economics, political philosophy, and public policy. Specific papers deal with naturalistic epistemology, the limits of reductionism, the biological justification of ethics, the so-called 'trolley problem' (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Gloria Ayob & Tim Thornton (2014). Psychopathy: What Apology Making Tells Us About Moral Agency. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (1):17-29.score: 30.0
    Psychopathy is often used to settle disputes about the nature of moral judgment. The “trolley problem” is a familiar scenario in which psychopathy is used as a test case. Where a convergence in response to the trolley problem is registered between psychopathic subjects and non-psychopathic (normal) subjects, it is assumed that this convergence indicates that the capacity for making moral judgments is unimpaired in psychopathy. This, in turn, is taken to have implications for the dispute between (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Steven M. Cahn & Peter J. Markie (eds.) (2009). Ethics: History, Theory, and, Contemporary Issues. Oxford University Press.score: 30.0
    The most comprehensive collection of its kind, Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues, Third Edition, is organized into three parts, providing instructors with flexibility in designing and teaching a variety of courses in moral philosophy. The first part, Historical Sources, moves from classical thought (Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus) through medieval views (Augustine and Aquinas) to modern theories (Hobbes, Butler, Hume, Kant, Bentham, and Mill), culminating with leading nineteenth- and twentieth-century thinkers (Nietzsche, James, Dewey, Camus, and Sartre). The second part, (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000