Would You Kill the Fat Man?
By David Edmonds
I don't know where I was in college but I had never heard of the Trolley problem. When I read this title and was intrigued. When I was reading it I found the book more than philosophy, it has history and science in it too! The debate on this problem and others are discussed and many different philosophers' points or opinions on each problem is discussed. Each varies in how they solve the problem. As the book goes through history, similar problems occur in real life. The different philosopher's views would be weighed on each situation. An interesting walk through time.
Then the scientists who can change a persons view on just about everything from sex, acceptance of others, and more. How hormones, chemicals, and medicines effect our brain. Injuries or disease too!
I found this book very interesting and intriguing. Some of the questions or situations are very strange but makes people think!
No, I would not kill the Fat man. Sorry. ( )

Avete presente, quando, nei film, l'eroe deve decidere se disattivare una bomba che ucciderebbe migliaia di persone o salvare la sua ragazza/il suo migliore amico?

Noi siamo davanti allo schermo e ci mangiamo le unghie sapendo che, razionalmente, dovrebbe scegliere di salvare le persone minacciate dalla bomba, perché sono tante, ma è anche vero che se il regista sa quello che fa, queste persone sono comparse (salvo strategiche inquadrature di bambini), mentre ragazza/migliore amico sono lì dall'inizio del film e un po' ci siamo affezionati.

Ecco, sappiate che è un dilemma su cui i filosofi dibattono da anni. "Cosa farebbe una persona se dovesse sacrificare un persona per salvarne 5? E' lecito che uno statista diriga le bombe nemiche in aree meno strategiche rispetto ad altre, sacrificando certe persone (es. quartieri poveri) invece che altre?"

A volte, c'è da dirlo, i filosofi si sono forse fatti troppe pare mentali: i meccanismi che ho visto tra le pagine di questo libro nemmeno a cinque anni con i lego mi sarebbero venuti in mente, e sapete bene che con i lego se ti scappavo la mano venivano fuori cose assurde che Escher spostati.

Però ci sono i risultati di diversi studi su come a volte la mente umana funzioni in modo strani: per esempio, su come la nostra percezione della responsabilità vari se dobbiamo spingere una persona piuttosto che tirare una leva, anche se il risultato lo stesso.

Non difficile, sicuramente molto didattico e forse, ad occhio, non adatto a chi la filosofia e questo dibattito li ha già studiati.

Il Club del Libro
Libro del mese di Ottobre 2020 ( )

An entertaining read, but it doesn't commit to a conclusion, preferring instead to present many conflicting perspectives on the subject. Might be an easy in for an outsider to the subject matter, but I can't say as I don't have any knowledge of it outside of this book. ( )

I received this book free through Goodreads. As a parent of two young adults I enjoyed this book. We discussed the dilemma, the choices, repercussions and more. I thoroughly enjoyed this book ( )

I've read two books on the same subject, The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge by Dave Cathcart and David Edmonds's Would You Kill the Fat Man/, so I thought that I would compare them.

The original version, by British philosopher Phillipa Foot, involved a tram, of course. In her original, the question involved the driver of a runaway tram, but the more familiar version involves a bystander. Suppose a runaway trolley/tram is headed toward five people who cannot get off the track. You are standing near a switch, and can divert the trolley/tram onto another track where only one person will be struck. Should you do it? This version is called the Spur. The unfortunately named “Fat Man” variation, created by Judith Jarvis Thomson, assumes that a light-weight, but apparently extremely strong, bystander is on a bridge overlooking a runaway trolley, again menacing five people. Also on the bridge is a fat man so heavy that his body would stop the trolley and save the five people. Would you throw him off and stop the trolley? (I am sorry if it offends anyone, I'm obese myself, but that's what the case is called.) Should you throw him off, since this also trades one life for five? Or, should you kill a healthy patient if his organs could be donated to save fine other patients.

These two versions have inspired surveys of both philosophers and laypeople, as well as neurological studies of how the brain reacts. The surveys show that by overwhelming margins, both philosophers and laypeople would throw the switch, but not the Fat Man. The latter problem affects the emotional centers of the brain, apparently the thought of laying violent hands on the man would stop most people.

Something which disappoints me about both books is that the original case was supposed to have to do with abortion, which neither author explains; the connection is not obvious to me. Apparently, the connection is the Doctrine of Double Effects, explained in both books, but a tram does not seem like an apt example. I am also disappointed that neither mentions Michael F. Patton Jr.'s "Tissues in the Profession: Can Bad Men Make Good Brains do Bad Things," surely the Trolley Problem to end all Trolley Problems. Cathcart does have a reference to it buried in the notes.

There are many additional variants, developed by by various writers, including Frances Kamm. Edmonds covers these much better than Cathcart, including ten all together, gathered handily into an appendix for easy reference. The problem is that implications of many of these are not well developed. Edmonds tells us what Kamm, for example thinks is acceptable or not, but doesn't explain her thinking. The other problem, which is not a criticism of Edmonds, is that many of them become so intricate and implausible that I think they add little to the subject. It appears that these have not been studied like the two primary cases. Of the eight additional cases, it appears to me that only the Loop and the Trap Door and the Lazy Susan, all variations of the Fat Man scenario tease out any meaningful nuances by eliminating some of the objections to pushing the unfortunate sacrificial victim. (Lazy Susan also has an element of the Spur.) Most of the others strike me as so ridiculous that I cannot think seriously about them, and I reach again for my copy of Patton's parody.

Cathcart's is the simpler and lighter of the two books, and rather more fun to read. His scenario is that one Daphne Jones is to be tried in the Court of Public Opinion for diverting the trolley in the first example. Statements from defense and prosecution lawyers, amicus curiae, newspapers articles, talks in the faculty lounge and so forth spell out the problems, relevant issues, and similar cases. He includes sidebars on various philosophers whose ideas have a bearing on how we might judge the case. I actually prefer the sidebars to working the same information into his narratives, but curiously he has little to say about Phillipa Foot.

Edmonds, on the other hand, includes a narrative about Foot and her associates, such as Iris Murdoch and G.E.M. (Elizabeth) Anscombe. These don't particularly explain her ideas, however, rather it sets the scene of her life, sharing an apartment, shoes, and lovers with Murdock; her friendship and eventual estrangement from Anscombe. We actually learn more about Anscombe's ideas than Foot's. Edmonds also talks about other more real life situations that might seem to apply such as cannibalism among shipwreck survivors. These may strike the reader as interesting in themselves, or as excessively tangential. The chief importance of Anscombe, in my opinion, is that she is referenced in Patton's parody.

I read both books twice, so I recommend them both. Neither is terribly long and both are interesting. ( )