This article describes a teaching plan for a discussion-driven introduction to moral reasoning and explains its philosophical and pedagogical rationale. The teaching plan consists of a sequence of thought experiments that build on one another, and ends with participants addressing some morally complex, real-life issues. The plan rests on extensive experience teaching moral reasoning in several different professional learning environments. The main contribution of this article is practical. The goal is to equip educators with a pedagogical approach and ready-to-use teaching materials. To this end, the article offers the methodological background, identifies learning objectives as well as pitfalls of teaching the trolley problem, and describes the pedagogy of the session.
AwadE.DsouzaS.BonnefonJ.-F.ShariffA., & RahwanI. (2020). Crowdsourcing moral machines. Communications of the ACM, 63(3), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3339904
4.
AwadE.DsouzaS.KimR.SchulzJ.HenrichJ.ShariffA.BonnefonJ.-F., & RahwanI. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
5.
BaltzlyV. B. (2021). Trolleyology as first philosophy: A puzzle-centered approach to introducing the discipline. Teaching Philosophy, 44(2). https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil202141143
6.
BaradeiL. E. (2021). Ethics education in public affairs programs: What do faculty around the globe have to say?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(2), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2020.1818023
7.
BaumanC. W.McGrawA. P.BartelsD. M., & WarrenC. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 536–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12131
8.
BonnefonJ.-F.ShariffA., & RahwanI. (2020). The moral psychology of AI and the ethical opt-out problem. In LiaoS. M. (Ed.), Ethics of artificial intelligence (pp. 109–126). Oxford University Press.
9.
BonnefonJ.-F.ShariffA., & RahwanI. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573–1576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2654
10.
BurriS. (2020). Why moral theorizing needs real cases: The redirection of V-Weapons during the Second World War. Journal of Political Philosophy, 28(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12200
EdmondsD. (2013). Would you kill the fat man?: The trolley problem and what your answer tells us about right and wrong. Princeton University Press.
13.
EngischK. (1930). Untersuchungen über Vorsatz und Fahrlässigkeit im Strafrecht. Scientia Verlag. 2 1964.
14.
FeynmanR. P. (2005). The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works of Richard P. Feynman. Basic Books.
15.
FootP. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.
16.
FrankfurtH. (1982). The importance of what we care about. Synthese, 53(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00484902
17.
FriedB. H. (2012). What does matter? The case for killing the trolley problem (Or letting it die). The Philosophical Quarterly, 62(248), 505–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00061.x
HauserM.CushmanF.YoungL.JinR. K.-X., & MikhailJ. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00297.x
20.
HimmelreichJ. (2018). Never mind the trolley: The ethics of autonomous vehicles in mundane situations. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21(3), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9896-4
KaganS. (2015). Solving the trolley problem. In RakowskiE. (Ed.), The trolley problem mysteries (pp. 151–168). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190247157.001.0001
23.
KammF. M. (2020). The use and abuse of the trolley problem: Self-driving cars, medical treatments, and the distribution of harm. In LiaoS. M. (Ed.), Ethics of artificial intelligence (pp. 79–108). Oxford University Press.
24.
LeporaC., & GoodinR. E. (2013). On complicity and compromise. Oxford University Press.
25.
LinP. (2016). Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In MaurerM.LenzB.GerdesJ. C., & WinnerH. (Eds.), Autonomous driving—Technical, legal and social aspects (pp. 69–86). Springer. http://www.springer.com/de/book/9783662488454
26.
MeyerS. J. (2021). Everything is fine! Using “The Good Place” to teach administrative ethics. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2020.1782102
27.
RawlsJ.1971. A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. Revised. 1999
28.
RawlsJ. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.
ThomsonJ. J. (1985). The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395. https://doi.org/10.2307/796133
35.
ThomsonJ. J. (2008). Turning the trolley. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 36(4), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2008.00144.x
36.
ThomsonJ. J. (2016). Kamm on the trolley problems. In RakowskiE. (Ed.), The trolley problem mysteries (pp. 113–134). Oxford University Press.
37.
ThomsonJ. J., & SugdenS. J. B. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist, 59(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197659224
38.
WelzelH. (1951). Zum Notstandsproblem. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 63(Jahresband), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/zstw.1951.63.1.47
WoodA. (2013). Humanity as end in itself. In SchefflerS. (Ed.), On what matters (Vol. 2, pp. 58–82). Oxford University Press.
41.
WoollardF. (2012). The doctrine of doing and allowing I: Analysis of the doing/allowing distinction. Philosophy Compass, 7(7), 448–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00491.x
42.
WoollardF. (2015). Doing and allowing harm. Oxford University Press.
