Volume 30, Number 3
May 2025
DISCUSSION

In Defense of the Trolley Method

and
Volume 30, Number 3, May 2025, Pages 509–518
https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v30i3.4324
PDFPDF

Abstract

Guy Crain alleges three shortcomings of the trolley method of moral philosophy: (1) trolley cases fail to model real-world decision-making; (2) trolley cases tend to foreground high-stakes decisions, which makes them a poor tool for analyzing the ethical decisions most people routinely face; and (3) trolley cases tend to present their agents as anonymous blanks, which invites readers to fill in the blanks in problematic ways. In reply, we argue that Crain mischaracterizes the trolley method by neglecting a key feature of trolley cases: they have the goal of shaping specific audience beliefs in specific ways. The shortcomings Crain alleges are not shortcomings of trolley cases deployed in standard belief-shaping ways.
Copyright © 2025 Ian Stoner and Jason Swartwood
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
|

Three Shortcomings of the Trolley Method of Moral Philosophy

Guy Crain

A Defense of the Cautionary Approach to Supererogation

Alfred Archer and Seyyed Mohsen Eslami

Elicitory Structural Power and Agential Power: An Outline and Defense

Arash Abizadeh

Enclaves for the Excluded: A Pessimistic Defense

Jamie Draper

In Defense of Claim Rights

Michael Da Silva

In Defense of Moderation: Culpable Ignorance and the Structure of Exculpation

James Goodrich

The Indefensible Self-Defense Argument

Howard Hewitt

Religious Reasoning in the Liberal Public from the Second-Personal Perspective: A Defense of an Inclusivist Model of Public Reason Liberalism

Patrick Zoll

Thomson’s Trolley Problem

Peter A. Graham

In Defense of Batman: Reply to Bradley

Gerald Lang and Rob Lawlor

Thomson’s Trolley Switch

Robert Shaver

In Defense of the Wide-Scope Instrumental Principle

Simon Rippon

Portico