Lesser-evil justifications for harming: Why we're required to turn the trolley

32Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Much philosophical attention has been paid to the question of whether, and why, one may divert a runaway trolley away from where it will kill five people to where it will kill one. But little attention has been paid to whether the reasons that ground a permission to divert thereby ground a duty to divert. This paper defends the Requirement Thesis, which holds that one is, ordinarily, required to act on lesser-evil justifications for harming for the sake of others. Cases in which we have lesser-evil justifications of harming for the sake of others are rescue cases. Ordinarily, an agent is under a duty to rescue unless doing so imposes too great a cost on her, or violates someone else's rights. When neither of these defeating conditions obtain, one is required to rescue even if this involves causing harm to innocent people. The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Scots Philosophical Association and the University of St.Andrews. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Frowe, H. (2018). Lesser-evil justifications for harming: Why we’re required to turn the trolley. Philosophical Quarterly, 68(272), 460–480. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqx065

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free