The Trolley Problem with Dr. Hallvard Lillehammer

PJ and Dr. Hallvard Lillehammer discuss the classic philosophical thought experiment of the trolley problem, including its history, its many variations, and what it reveals about the ways we work through difficult decisions.

Show Notes

In this episode of Chasing Leviathan, PJ and Dr. Hallvard Lillehammer discuss the trolley problem: Imagine that a trolley is speeding towards five people who are stuck on the trolley track. You are standing by a lever that can turn the trolley to another track to save those five people...but there is a person lying alone on the other track. Would you pull the lever? What if one of the people on the track was a loved one? Is pulling the lever different from a doctor killing one patient to provide live-saving organ donations for five other patients? 

Join the conversation as Dr. Hallvard Lillehammer explores this classic philosophical thought experiment, including its history, many variations, and what it reveals about the ways we work through difficult decisions. 

For a deep dive into Dr. Hallvard Lillehammer's work, check out his book: The Trolley Problem (Classic Philosophical Arguments) 👉 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1009255592 

Check out our blog on www.candidgoatproductions.com 

Who thinks that they can subdue Leviathan? Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. When it rises up, the mighty are terrified. Nothing on earth is its equal. It is without fear. It looks down on all who are haughty; it is king over all who are proud. 

These words inspired PJ Wehry to create Chasing Leviathan. Chasing Leviathan was born out of two ideals: that truth is worth pursuing but will never be subjugated, and the discipline of listening is one of the most important habits anyone can develop. 

Every episode is a dialogue, a journey into the depths of a meaningful question explored through the lens of personal experience or professional expertise.

What is Chasing Leviathan?

Who thinks that they can subdue Leviathan? Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. It is without fear. It looks down on all who are haughty; it is king over all who are proud. These words inspired PJ Wehry to create Chasing Leviathan. Chasing Leviathan was born out of two ideals: that truth is worth pursuing but will never be subjugated, and the discipline of listening is one of the most important habits anyone can develop. Every episode is a dialogue, a journey into the depths of a meaningful question explored through the lens of personal experience or professional expertise.

[pj_wehry]: and welcome to chasing leviathan i'm your
host weary and i'm currently here with dr

[pj_wehry]: halvard lila hammer he is currently a
professor in the school of social sciences history

[pj_wehry]: and philosophy at birkbeck college in the
university of london my apologies i start over

[pj_wehry]: we say that over again hello and
welcome to chasing leviathan i'm your host p

[pj_wehry]: j weary and i'm here with dr
halvard lillihammer he is currently professor in the

[pj_wehry]: school of social sciences history and philosophy
of birkbeck dr a little hammer really grateful

[pj_wehry]: to have you on today really excited
to talk about the trolley problem that the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thanks

[pj_wehry]: volume

[hallvard_lillehammer]: for having

[pj_wehry]: is coming

[hallvard_lillehammer]: me

[pj_wehry]: out yeah and so we're talking about
the trolley problem um and you edited this

[pj_wehry]: volume that has twelve original essays uh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: oh

[pj_wehry]: tell me a little bit about how

[hallvard_lillehammer]: yeah

[pj_wehry]: you kind of came to be part
of this book ok

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that's that's a long story i try
make it as short as possible so i've

[hallvard_lillehammer]: been thinking about some of these topics
for a long time i'm interested in thought

[hallvard_lillehammer]: experiments and how we think about morality
i'm interested in gap between how sometimes we're

[hallvard_lillehammer]: very sure about how we come to
certain moral conclusions but when we try to

[hallvard_lillehammer]: explain why we come to those conclusions
are we come across evidence as to why

[hallvard_lillehammer]: we came to think this is we
thought the story is not always what we

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thought it was and were perhaps very
good at it and then the question is

[hallvard_lillehammer]: what to make of that in practice
and i think the the literature on the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: trolley problem that's developed over the last
half century or so in some sense includes

[hallvard_lillehammer]: contributions to thinking about all of those
things so when the opportunity came along to

[hallvard_lillehammer]: do this jack i thought this was
a principal and interesting idea but there's a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: particularly good reason to do this project
which is that um there's like a several

[hallvard_lillehammer]: strands of thinking the trolley problems have
developed over the last half century but they've

[hallvard_lillehammer]: developed in parallel and this project gave
gave us an opportunity to bring these strands

[hallvard_lillehammer]: together so both the traditional moral theorists
people who work on the psychology of moral

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thinking and people who think about the
application of thought experiments to real life issues

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so that's like a unique selling point
or attraction to this particular project and also

[hallvard_lillehammer]: it's a very good time to do
it because some of the people who have

[hallvard_lillehammer]: been the main drivers of this literature
are still act if and some of them

[hallvard_lillehammer]: are contributing to the volume sadly the
people

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: who initiated or created or invented the
problem are no longer with us but some

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of the main contributors are so in
that sense it was particularly exciting for me

[hallvard_lillehammer]: to be able to work with these
people and i've i enjoy doing so

[pj_wehry]: m that's great and i definitely want
to come back to what those parallel strands

[pj_wehry]: are that's really fascinating to me but
i'm sure a lot of our audience is

[pj_wehry]: familiar with it but do you mind
just explaining what the trolley pro lem is

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that's that's itself as a problem but
yes so

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: some people think the trolley problem is
just like a thought experience of a case

[hallvard_lillehammer]: perhaps the first instance of it is
as a driver who's on a train heading

[hallvard_lillehammer]: towards five people on a track the
train can't be stopped and then they have

[hallvard_lillehammer]: all option only which is to switch
to another track where there's another person and

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the consequences are specified stipulated either five
people will die or one person will die

[hallvard_lillehammer]: sometimes cloqally people think that that's the
trolley problem but that's not the trolly problem

[hallvard_lillehammer]: most people who are asked about this
and there's quite a lot of evidence that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: this is quite almost universal will think
perhaps it's okay that to switch in that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: case the problem arises because there are
other cases that are structurally identical in terms

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of their consequences where people come to
the opposite conclusion so initially the example that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: was used for example by philip a
foot he was the first person to introduce

[hallvard_lillehammer]: this example was that of a judge
who was in a position whereby punishing an

[hallvard_lillehammer]: innocent person could save a number of
lives and why was that different from what

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the driver did in the in the
trolley case and then little less than a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: decade later dith jobbins thomson introduced the
case of a doctor who could kill one

[hallvard_lillehammer]: patient and distribute their organs to five
people and then a decade later after that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: she came up with another example over
yeah of the of the same structural problem

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and the narrowest definition of the trolley
problem that can be thought of as defining

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the problem is to have these two
cases where the consequences are the same you

[hallvard_lillehammer]: either have five people die or one
person dies but in some cases people think

[hallvard_lillehammer]: it's okay so say the driver case
but in the case of the doctor or

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the judge it's not okay and i
think that's as nice a definition of the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: trolley problem narrowly understood as you can
have

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: but again that's not the only way
people think of the trolley problem some people

[hallvard_lillehammer]: go even more abstract or one of
the main contributors to this lie sure in

[hallvard_lillehammer]: recent decades francis camp she defines it
much more generically as a question that arises

[hallvard_lillehammer]: for people who think that you should
not always produce the best outcome then you

[hallvard_lillehammer]: have to try to find a way
to explain why sometimes it's okay and sometimes

[hallvard_lillehammer]: it's not okay to cause harm for
the greater good that in some sense is

[hallvard_lillehammer]: what the trolley problem is really about
and then finally there are those who labor

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the trolley problem most any kind of
use of an abstract thought experiment that abstracts

[hallvard_lillehammer]: away from reality is very schematic normally
includes a fixed set of what the consequences

[hallvard_lillehammer]: are and then uses that arise in
some way um so there are there's a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: very narrow way of thinking about it
is a very very general way of thinking

[hallvard_lillehammer]: about it but i think being true
to history it's about these two cases one

[hallvard_lillehammer]: case at least involves a trolley uh
h these days they both involve a troll

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the variations and the entrolis and that
i think is the best way to understand

[hallvard_lillehammer]: what the trolley problem is

[pj_wehry]: yeah um yeah i love that and
when i went through my ethics course and

[pj_wehry]: my masters we talked about it and
we talked about it as a pedagogical tool

[pj_wehry]: where you basically kept adding different variables
until you made people uncomfortable you know what

[pj_wehry]: i mean so and it is odd
it's it's weird to see how people react

[pj_wehry]: to different particulars and everyone will say
that they are very cohesive in their moral

[pj_wehry]: framework and then you just keep adding
stuff until eventually you find something there like

[pj_wehry]: yeah but i don't know why you
know or

[hallvard_lillehammer]: yeah

[pj_wehry]: no i wouldn't do that but i
don't know why i think one of the

[pj_wehry]: more common ones is the idea of
taking a larger man instead of switching you

[pj_wehry]: know five from five to one taking
a larger man and pushing him in front

[pj_wehry]: of the train to stop the train
and like

[hallvard_lillehammer]: indeed indeed

[pj_wehry]: yes

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so these days probably i would have
thought the majority of cases when the trolley

[hallvard_lillehammer]: problem is discussed in the philosophical literature
involves two cases involving trollies one is the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: case of a bystander you can flip
a switch

[pj_wehry]: yes

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so that the train that is heading
towards five can then go towards one person

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: on vast majority of people who are
normally asked whether that's permissible will say it's

[hallvard_lillehammer]: permissible okay or some other positive word

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and then that case is contrasted with
what's known as the foot bridge which the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: one that you talked about where some
large person is on a foot bridge over

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the over the tracks he train is
heading towards them if you push that large

[hallvard_lillehammer]: person on to the track that will
stop the train but kill the large person

[hallvard_lillehammer]: most people who are asked so that
you can't do that and then the question

[hallvard_lillehammer]: is what's the difference and perhaps that's
now the i would think that's the dominant

[hallvard_lillehammer]: way of defining the probably problem in
terms of cases

[pj_wehry]: yes i've heard you know variations with
the like what if you're related to the

[pj_wehry]: one person or what if you know
you have a stranger like five strangers one

[pj_wehry]: person you know all that which anyways
i don't get obviously like this is something

[pj_wehry]: that you've studied it's always been a
fascinating and i think it's why it keeps

[pj_wehry]: coming up a fascine discussion i love
that you have gone to that more abstract

[pj_wehry]: side of it because it becomes clear
that's what that's what's important right that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: m

[pj_wehry]: you know this is just a very
clearly visualized example um that we can use

[pj_wehry]: as a thought experiment versus m there's
immediately when you talk about the judge and

[pj_wehry]: the innocent man the doctor and the
organ downer you get the emotions flare up

[pj_wehry]: a lot faster than would the trolley
problem if that makes sense

[hallvard_lillehammer]: yes i mean i remember when i
was first introduced

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: to this and it's so long ago
i can't really remember i felt very uncomfortable

[hallvard_lillehammer]: i had some of the reactions that
you just described so one is the sense

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of dumfounding when you when you start
being drawn into this thing

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: sooner or later you realize you're losing
your bearings but even before that a sense

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of reluctant even to be drawn into
it in the first place it was some

[hallvard_lillehammer]: kind of trick question or or you
know why do i have to think about

[hallvard_lillehammer]: this which is itself i think an
interesting feature of the thing because on the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: one hand it has this uncomfortable fear
when you take it seriously but on the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: other hand it has this capacity get
vast numbers of people involved in thinking about

[hallvard_lillehammer]: this issue and then take some kind
of hypothetical view but what should happen in

[hallvard_lillehammer]: these circumstances so from being like like
a young and arrogant maybe adolescent who thought

[hallvard_lillehammer]: this was oldest uh

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: a trick

[pj_wehry]: ah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: become much more i've come to take
much more seriously the fact that people allow

[hallvard_lillehammer]: themselves to be or accept the invitation
to think about this in so many different

[hallvard_lillehammer]: ways

[pj_wehry]: i love even as you talk about
this the introduction that you wrote for this

[pj_wehry]: was i opening for me because i
love to come to these sorts of things

[pj_wehry]: and i feel like there's a certain
blindness when the history is hidden and i

[pj_wehry]: don't know if it was intentionally hidden
i don't you know i think they were

[pj_wehry]: just using it as a thought experiment
but the fact that it originally arose in

[pj_wehry]: the abortion debate in the u k
do you mind speaking to a little bit

[pj_wehry]: just giving us that kind of that
brief history of how this arose and how

[pj_wehry]: it was used uh as it first
started

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so the first occurrence in the in
the academic literature that is cited of course

[hallvard_lillehammer]: you never know there might be versions
earlier on that haven't haven't survived but the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: one that everybody mentions is a paper
by philip but in nineteen sixty seven cold

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the problem of abortion and the doctrine
of double effect in nineteen sixty seven was

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the year when abortion was made legal
in the uk the paper wasn't wasn't about

[hallvard_lillehammer]: trollies and it wasn't about the trolley
problem it was about various ways in which

[hallvard_lillehammer]: might be permissible to kill another human
being when the aim is good and part

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of the things that foot had a
target was this very famous and

[pj_wehry]: god

[hallvard_lillehammer]: very influential historical doctrine called the doctrine
a double effect which says that sometimes permissible

[hallvard_lillehammer]: cause of death as a side effect
when you're not intending it either as an

[hallvard_lillehammer]: end or as a means to your
end and she used various thought experiments to

[hallvard_lillehammer]: undermine this view and try to replace
it with another view and in the course

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of doing so she mentioned a lot
of hypothetical cases as what she described a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: bit of light relief and one of
these pieces of light relief was the case

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of the driver which was then compared
to the case of the judge and that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: basically as far as food was concerned
but it was then nearly a decade later

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that judith jarvis thompson picked up on
this sharpened up and define the problem as

[hallvard_lillehammer]: we now know it as what she
called a nasty lovely or lovely nasty can't

[hallvard_lillehammer]: remember which way it is difficulty which
moral theorist needs to resolve and

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: then we've kind of moved one step
up a bit we're trying to think about

[hallvard_lillehammer]: way of coming up with consistent principles
that allow us to capture all the variations

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of these cases and to say that
an industry grew out of this is not

[hallvard_lillehammer]: an exaggeration there were was a long
period when people develop various solutions to this

[hallvard_lillehammer]: problem i mean thompson herself elope at
least three different solutions to it during the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: course of her career and for many
years that was really what rolled trolley problem

[hallvard_lillehammer]: played but eventually for various reasons people

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: found that they could use this problem
to think about other things too not just

[hallvard_lillehammer]: normatively ethically but also descriptively because you
can think about the trolley problem in two

[hallvard_lillehammer]: different ways you can think okay here
we have this issue in some cases people

[hallvard_lillehammer]: think it's okay too let one person
die kill one person to say five in

[hallvard_lillehammer]: some case another case it isn't now
one thing you might ask is and what's

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the explanation why it's right to do
one thing rather than that's the normative question

[hallvard_lillehammer]: but another question is what is it
that explains that people come to these judgments

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and so a descriptive project or science
developed to try and explain why that was

[pj_wehry]: okay

[hallvard_lillehammer]: some of the most fertile and challenging
intellectually work that's been done on this issue

[hallvard_lillehammer]: in the last couple of decades has
been to try to negotiate how we should

[hallvard_lillehammer]: understand questions about how people actually come
to make this judge and what that tells

[hallvard_lillehammer]: us about how they should or vice
versa my

[pj_wehry]: yeah that moral and as you talk
about the descriptive side i think you're talking

[pj_wehry]: about that strand of moral psychology right
and so i think that's a perfect lead

[pj_wehry]: in you did talk about the parallel
strands before so you have the the moral

[pj_wehry]: theorist the moral psychologist and then you
mentioned applied thought experience experience is kind of

[pj_wehry]: third strand can you talk us through
those three strands

[hallvard_lillehammer]: yes so if you go back to
foot question was about the problem of abortion

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and so the question was in what
circumstances might it be permissible to kill a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: fits in the pursuit of some good
which is here that the mother's health well

[hallvard_lillehammer]: being just to save her life so
there's a very clear application but other applications

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that have been talked about have been
for example involving

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the ethics of kill in an aggressive
conflict so some of the contributors to this

[hallvard_lillehammer]: literature have been interested in the ethics
of war some of the examples that i

[hallvard_lillehammer]: used are about diverting rockets and various
types of things like that you might think

[hallvard_lillehammer]: about it now in terms of the
high technology that it goes into various weapons

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of war such as drones and in
more civil cases there is now literature and

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of course a legal and political situation
around the use of automation in vehicles like

[hallvard_lillehammer]: cars so the question is to what
extent can should we use these kinds of

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thought experiments to illuminate have to think
about these particular practical issues and that's a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: third strand that has developed some sense
is parallel to these grants in some sense

[hallvard_lillehammer]: interaction with them some of the main
contributors

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: m thomson and so on have contributed
to both strands

[pj_wehry]: uh can you talk you mentioned the
particular fertility of the moral psychology strand can

[pj_wehry]: you talk a little bit more about
what you've seen and appreciated out of that

[pj_wehry]: strand

[hallvard_lillehammer]: well so this is something that really
goes sort of straight to the heart really

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of my interest in philosophy from when
i was very young one of the things

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that drove me into philosophy was this
ceive gap in many cases between having a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: strong opinion being able to explain it
justify

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: it or have a confidence in it
when you realize how it came to be

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so then you know the standard accusation
is you only say that because and then

[hallvard_lillehammer]: some story comes along and sometimes

[pj_wehry]: hm

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that story is uncomfortable and not true
and sometimes it's uncomfortable true so some of

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the discussions about not just trolly problems
but other thought experiments that have investigated people's

[hallvard_lillehammer]: you know psychological psychological courses thereof and
perhaps even the neuro science there of sometimes

[hallvard_lillehammer]: create a kind of dumb founding effect
and

[pj_wehry]: right

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so the question is what do we
make of this and i think the there's

[hallvard_lillehammer]: a question about whether at which end
which end do you start you can start

[hallvard_lillehammer]: at a descriptive end and talk about
how people come to make certain judgments and

[hallvard_lillehammer]: then ask yourself what do we learn
from that in itself but what we should

[hallvard_lillehammer]: do or you can start at the
other end which is how i've normally thought

[hallvard_lillehammer]: about it traditionally although that's just my
view you have your normalty or your moral

[hallvard_lillehammer]: convictions and then you think that you
should date them in light of relevant empirical

[hallvard_lillehammer]: information and you learn some empirical information
about how you've come to make these judgments

[hallvard_lillehammer]: or evidence because evidence is usually contested
in some way and then you ask yourself

[hallvard_lillehammer]: what am i going to make of
it now that i have learned about the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: causes of my my convictions or the
fact that the explanation i came up with

[hallvard_lillehammer]: perhaps doesn't have much to do with
but i would say in another case and

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so and so forth and then you
yeah you have to feed this into your

[hallvard_lillehammer]: process of moral reflection in some way
and i think that that it's one of

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the most fascinating aspects of this literature
from my point of view

[pj_wehry]: absolutely um and so you talk about
the dumbfoundedness what do you find interesting about

[pj_wehry]: the reluctance that people have to even
delve into this question find anything particularly interesting

[pj_wehry]: about that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: well so i think there's a general
comfortableness about being confronted with the fact that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: we are as it were in some
sense not strangers to ourselves but you know

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the psychology behind how we react to
the world is many ways opaque to us

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and that you don't have to be
a neural scientist to think that it's just

[hallvard_lillehammer]: even before you you start thinking about
this scientifically it's quite clear that often that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: is the case history sociology family relationship
beliefs you've inherited all these sorts of things

[hallvard_lillehammer]: are part of that but that thing
so so that's something on just needs to

[hallvard_lillehammer]: take on board i think um m
from my point of view i think the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the question is whether people have been
reluctant in philosophy to take this seriously partly

[hallvard_lillehammer]: for what you might think of a
sort of institutional or sociological reasons but a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: discipline that thinks of itself as having
a certain integrity people often talk about

[pj_wehry]: my

[hallvard_lillehammer]: armchair philosophy

[pj_wehry]: okay

[hallvard_lillehammer]: or philosophers the philosophy seminar room more
or things like that or they talk about

[hallvard_lillehammer]: a priorism i guess all these labels
are labels for history and tradition of thinking

[hallvard_lillehammer]: about certain moral problems theoretical problems in
isolation from empirical facts that surround them uh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: uh and there are structural incentives and
institutions to be reluctant to do those things

[hallvard_lillehammer]: because you have to learn lots of
new things and there's also a sense of

[hallvard_lillehammer]: confidence among some people i mean some
people just think that just by sitting and

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thinking very hard about these issues like
various variations on the toilet case you can

[hallvard_lillehammer]: just work out what to say about
and be what the principle is and all

[hallvard_lillehammer]: this empirical stuff about now how minds
work in our histories is kind of irrelevant

[hallvard_lillehammer]: is you just turn around and say
well well thank you for telling me how

[hallvard_lillehammer]: we got there but how we got
there is not so important as where we

[hallvard_lillehammer]: should go and i've worked it out
from the arm chair i think that's part

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of the the reason for the reluctance
as well as just this sense of discomfort

[pj_wehry]: ah have you ever taught this or
even just in sharing with other people what

[pj_wehry]: are

[hallvard_lillehammer]: m

[pj_wehry]: some of the your

[hallvard_lillehammer]: oh

[pj_wehry]: favorite reactions you've ever had teaching or
sharing the trolley problem with people

[hallvard_lillehammer]: um m i guess the the most
the thing that most strikes me is

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that there's always a minority people who
refuse to engage

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: when i used in the i don't
do this nowadays

[pj_wehry]: ah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: but i used to do this way
way back when there was much less empirical

[hallvard_lillehammer]: evidence systematic evidence on these things i
used to do service of my students

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and i used to have three options
which was yes no permissible admissible and then

[hallvard_lillehammer]: boggle which is like jack

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the question there always there always has
been group of people who reject the question

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and that's something

[pj_wehry]: kay

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that is that is fascinating to me
there's also always a minority goes against what

[hallvard_lillehammer]: is normally considered to be as it
were the right or accepted answer and i've

[hallvard_lillehammer]: always been interested to find out and
i don't know enough about that really why

[hallvard_lillehammer]: it is that you get those those
answers i do have some ideas in some

[hallvard_lillehammer]: cases

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: not

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: always

[pj_wehry]: oh i mean even as i think
about my class there's always those people who

[pj_wehry]: insist on like the rigor and the
logic of it and so like for instance

[pj_wehry]: like most people are okay with the
switch but not with the pushing the person

[pj_wehry]: on the foot bridge and then there's
always like that small minority of people who

[pj_wehry]: are like nope if we're okay with
the lever we are okay with pushing the

[pj_wehry]: person bridge ahead of like we don't
have to jump so quickly it like it's

[pj_wehry]: like there's but yeah i understand a
do you think that there are some principles

[pj_wehry]: that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: oh

[pj_wehry]: are just harder to articulate that that
are coming from that those kind of intuitions

[pj_wehry]: that we find empirically you know as
you talk

[hallvard_lillehammer]: oh

[pj_wehry]: about like how we get there

[hallvard_lillehammer]: well the person you describe to

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: who basically wants to be consistent between
the two cases has a kind of strongly

[hallvard_lillehammer]: utilitarian mind set at least that's what
they've convinced themselves of and there are when

[hallvard_lillehammer]: such people

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: there are also i also have students
who are very much on the

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: opposite side but not very not as
often i once had a discussion with someone

[hallvard_lillehammer]: who would not

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: act save the greatest number

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: in any case whatsoever because

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the person in question believe that that
would be becomplicit or you'd make yourself complicity

[hallvard_lillehammer]: or you'd be actively actively killing another
person or some such thing and that should

[pj_wehry]: very

[hallvard_lillehammer]: never

[pj_wehry]: deontelogical

[hallvard_lillehammer]: never happen

[pj_wehry]: right like

[hallvard_lillehammer]: they're

[pj_wehry]: very consent

[hallvard_lillehammer]: very very

[pj_wehry]: yes

[hallvard_lillehammer]: antologiclyah yeah

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: but between that i think i don't
have a sort of systematic sense of what

[hallvard_lillehammer]: from the p students i speak to
about what what is really going on except

[hallvard_lillehammer]: two things one there is model and
the other there are some of those principles

[hallvard_lillehammer]: which we we have known from long
time ago which do seem to play a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: large part in people's thinking at some
level because they are articulated in perhaps common

[hallvard_lillehammer]: culture so the difference between killing and
letting die or acting an omission or being

[hallvard_lillehammer]: active or passive that's clearly

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: something that is

[pj_wehry]: ah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: very common that comes up into these
discussions the the considerations i mentioned earlier about

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the doctrine of double effect of attention
and foresight perhaps less often in my experience

[hallvard_lillehammer]: with my students there's also the issue
about whether you're using someone as a means

[hallvard_lillehammer]: to an end purely as a means
to an end as kant would say i

[hallvard_lillehammer]: think that comes up and then a
lot of the time people have a worry

[hallvard_lillehammer]: about who is involved and who is
not involved then the scenario

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: those are the sort of my perfectly
inform sorry in formal experiences of the things

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that come through of course you know
this is studied by people systematically now across

[hallvard_lillehammer]: cultures and the b in the book
is a chapter which does a study of

[hallvard_lillehammer]: probably older systematic cross cultural comparisons that
have been made in recent years including one

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that came out a couple of years
ago which compares people across forty different countries

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so that's where you should go for
the for the for the answer to your

[hallvard_lillehammer]: question no not from my personal experience
from

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: closer ye

[pj_wehry]: i do have to ask and obviously
we want people to buy the book and

[pj_wehry]: get that in depth but what was
the most surprising thing for you reading that

[pj_wehry]: chapter in the book about the cross
cultural of the forty so studies across countries

[hallvard_lillehammer]: m oh i don't think there was
that much surprising

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: perhaps perhaps the people who should pay
attention are the ones who would say you

[hallvard_lillehammer]: can't generalize from what people say in
i don't know california or london about the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: trolley cases because you just talked to
a bunch of people what you are it

[hallvard_lillehammer]: looks like at least in two coal
cases we mentioned earlier the bystander case and

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the footbridge case quite a lot of
evidence that people who are allowing themselves to

[hallvard_lillehammer]: be drilled into these questions they are
usually probably from a maybe more highly educated

[hallvard_lillehammer]: demographic there may be some self selection
i m not saying

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that we're demographically completely representative

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: but there does seem to be quite
a lot of evidence that people go a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: certain way in these cases

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so that's one interesting thing about it
but the picture is mixed when i when

[hallvard_lillehammer]: it comes to other cases and that's
also un surprising i think but i think

[hallvard_lillehammer]: we should be aware of one important
thing when it comes to this studies and

[hallvard_lillehammer]: what their studies of which is they
are studies

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of people considering a thought experiment and
not studies of people behavior

[pj_wehry]: right right i mean it did occur
to me even as you're talking about like

[pj_wehry]: do i know the person not know
the person i think those are often more

[pj_wehry]: intellectually honest questions when you think about
like that someone who's imaginatively putting themselves in

[pj_wehry]: that in that place because if my
son is the one person that's a very

[pj_wehry]: different and whether that's right or wrong
it's definitely in the moment of making that

[pj_wehry]: decision

[hallvard_lillehammer]: well

[pj_wehry]: that's

[hallvard_lillehammer]: i think you're

[pj_wehry]: definitely

[hallvard_lillehammer]: bringing up

[pj_wehry]: part

[hallvard_lillehammer]: something

[pj_wehry]: of it

[hallvard_lillehammer]: very important there about what the problem
now has come to be

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: because the problem has come to be

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: more and more abstractly

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: find so that the persons in question
are supposed to be as it were any

[hallvard_lillehammer]: arbitrary person any arbitrary innocent person of
course the arbitrary person doesn't exist

[pj_wehry]: right right

[hallvard_lillehammer]: all else is never equal so whatever
we're talking about we're not talking about the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: real world and if

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: we're starting with a problem in the
real world such as one that involves one's

[hallvard_lillehammer]: child or one's colleague or someone that
knows and doesn't know starting in another place

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so the question really is what if
anything can we learn about that from thinking

[hallvard_lillehammer]: about these abstract cases and i think
clearly

[pj_wehry]: yah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: there is a lot of controversy about
that but one should be careful to think

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that you can just go on the
shelf and pick a trolley case

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and apply it to these real world
cases i think

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that's but the i fear that has
sometimes been a tendency pedegogically kind of do

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that it's tempting it can be fun
as it were

[pj_wehry]: a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: but i think one should be very
careful like one should be careful with any

[hallvard_lillehammer]: kind of modeling because in some sense
this is kind of modeling it

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: model is not nice it's supposed to
be predictive of how things are it's a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thinking tool that you use to identify
certain features in the real situation so you

[hallvard_lillehammer]: can think more clearly about the real
situation and what you then go on to

[hallvard_lillehammer]: do about that is different question

[pj_wehry]: m no and that's good and it's
it's a very careful sort of um caution

[pj_wehry]: that i think characterizes the best of
philosophical thinking so i appreciate you you bring

[pj_wehry]: that into the discussion because it is
it's easy to elaborate on it's it's an

[pj_wehry]: easy um philosophical students late night at
a coffee shop or somewhere else to just

[pj_wehry]: like just keep adding on to it
and feel like they have these ants i'm

[pj_wehry]: reminded i had we were getting kind
of glib in our ethics class we are

[pj_wehry]: working through i don't

[hallvard_lillehammer]: i

[pj_wehry]: know if it was a trile problem
per se and another student who had become

[pj_wehry]: a good friend of mine about half
way through the class we were talking about

[pj_wehry]: more and more terrible things right but
it was abstract so no one cared and

[pj_wehry]: then something someone said related directly to
this other students life experience which involved he

[pj_wehry]: and his wife had a disagreement about
whether to do an evasive proc your to

[pj_wehry]: check on health concern for her while
they had a baby and he said they

[pj_wehry]: should and she said that they should
not and obviously she had final economy over

[pj_wehry]: her body and she was fine um
and he could have harmed his child right

[pj_wehry]: and he started crying in the middle
of class and it was amazing how like

[pj_wehry]: the real realization i think this is
that moral psychology part you were aling about

[pj_wehry]: is how we become so glib and
hadn't thought through the consequences of what we

[pj_wehry]: were saying and then all a sudden
the enormity of and maybe even you know

[pj_wehry]: if i couldn't say the sanctity of
the lives we were talking about or the

[pj_wehry]: the experiences we were just kind of
jedising jedisoning out into the void became very

[pj_wehry]: clear and that was that to this
day is still something else struck with me

[pj_wehry]: is to to sit with the gravity
of what i'm saying even as i go

[pj_wehry]: through it i don't know if

[hallvard_lillehammer]: i

[pj_wehry]: that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: think that's one of the

[pj_wehry]: head

[hallvard_lillehammer]: one of the most challenging thing to
teach actually ethics in general is to be

[hallvard_lillehammer]: be respectful towards your audience towards the
topic that you're ultimately aiming at which is

[hallvard_lillehammer]: to live well

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and also to the material you're using
to think about that and i think it's

[hallvard_lillehammer]: easy to transgress boundaries not just because
you're lazy or glib but also actually because

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of method logical convictions so of course
there are some people who are very ambitious

[hallvard_lillehammer]: on behalf of what moral theory can
deliver certain very simple ways for whom it

[hallvard_lillehammer]: will be a matter of having the
courage of their convictions if asked the question

[hallvard_lillehammer]: should you do so and so in
this real case will maybe have to say

[hallvard_lillehammer]: yes or no because that's what they
really believe so i think it does depend

[hallvard_lillehammer]: really on some deep philosophical questions about
what moral theory is about what it can

[hallvard_lillehammer]: deliver and what we should expect of
it when we we apply to real cases

[pj_wehry]: um now this is a little bit
of call back to what we had discussed

[pj_wehry]: previously but can you talk a little
bit about positive duty versus negative duty in

[pj_wehry]: terms of the trolley problem how it
was first kind of discussed i think that's

[pj_wehry]: felipa foot i could be i could
be wrong about that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: yes so so what's now the one
of the canonical parts of the troll problem

[hallvard_lillehammer]: came out of criticism of philip foot's
work because in this famous paper in nineteen

[hallvard_lillehammer]: sixty seven this year

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: criticize the doctrine the double effect she
proposed an alternative view um which on some

[hallvard_lillehammer]: readings would resolve the trolley problem in
some of its instances which was the distinguished

[hallvard_lillehammer]: positive duties you have two aid a
negative duties you have not harm

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: where negative duties trump positive duties which
means that if you're stuck in a conflict

[hallvard_lillehammer]: where you can either help five people
kill one person then you should not kill

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the one person um and she thought
that this would help not solve the trolley

[hallvard_lillehammer]: problem because he didn't talk about trolley
problem in those terms but you thought you

[hallvard_lillehammer]: could solve other other problems ah and
one of the weaknesses of her theory was

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that it was possible to construct cases
very similar to her original trolley case with

[hallvard_lillehammer]: a driver

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: where if you think of the driver
as acting either way you're dealing with a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: conflict between negative duties so you kill
five or you kill one so it's not

[hallvard_lillehammer]: positive versus negative so you choose the
least bad options and you swear

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: uh but

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: very similar cases it looks like foots
solution gets the wrong answer and so judith

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thompson who was one of these one
of the main contributors to the literature in

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the seventies eighties and nineties and notes
she came up with this wonderful example which

[hallvard_lillehammer]: has now become one of the canonical
parts of the trolly which is the bystander

[hallvard_lillehammer]: case which you've talked about before well
you have a bystander who just happens to

[hallvard_lillehammer]: be near the train

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that's hurtling down perhaps the driver has
fainted or some such thing and has the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: choice between letting it go towards the
five turning it towards the one and then

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the problem is that if the bystander
does turn it towards the one they are

[hallvard_lillehammer]: fringing on a negative duty against the
one whereas intuitively this is controversial everything is

[hallvard_lillehammer]: controversial if the bystander let's do the

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: trolley go towards the five uh they
are merely not acting on a positive duty

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the negative duty comes the positive duty
as food says the bystander shouldn't switch but

[hallvard_lillehammer]: overwhelming majority responses it's okay to switch
so standard philosophical tool counter example to the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: original view of foot and so a
new search starts to come up with an

[hallvard_lillehammer]: alternative solution yeah

[pj_wehry]: you've talked a little bit

[pj_wehry]: does that relate to the idea of
that to me it sounds like there's very

[pj_wehry]: there's a slight distinction but important between
positive duty negative duty you mentioned they can

[pj_wehry]: switch it's okay to switch um can
you talk a little bit about having to

[pj_wehry]: switch and what the how that fits
in so if that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: oh

[pj_wehry]: if that makes sense base i think
that's slightly you know we talk about choice

[hallvard_lillehammer]: ye

[pj_wehry]: between a positive negative duty and then
there's like ere's like you have to do

[pj_wehry]: something in this case and i think
that's even a you know i have the

[pj_wehry]: choice to switch from five to one
or i have to do that or i

[pj_wehry]: am immoral

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so this is interesting on

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and also of course has been subject
to great controversy but so when when when

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thomson first introduced the bystander case she
she stopped short of saying that the

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: bystander should switch

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: why that is the case is interesting

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: but let's say let's be very clear
about who says they should switch a simple

[hallvard_lillehammer]: act consequentialist who says you should always
act

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: minimize bad or maxim as good will
say the you

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: auto switch would be wrong not to
do so so one thing

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: you might have is just an

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: intuitive feeling

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: um m that perhaps it's asking too
much for the person to switch in this

[hallvard_lillehammer]: case and that's why it's not permissible
to switch it's not obligatory switch but there

[hallvard_lillehammer]: are some arguments that suggest that the
permissibility is

[pj_wehry]: ye

[hallvard_lillehammer]: they are supposed to the obligation one
argument

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: which is actually articulated by one of
the authors of this book peter graham is

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that if you think about the possibility
of being the person who is about to

[hallvard_lillehammer]: be killed work person on the track
suppose that they had the opportunity to turn

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the trolley back on the person who
was switching yeah would that be okay for

[hallvard_lillehammer]: them to do would it be okay
to defend yourself against being sacrificed for the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: great good the thought is yes it
would be

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: then thought as well

[pj_wehry]: h yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: if you'd be permissible for the work
person to defend themselves by then killing the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: bystander can't be obligatory for the standard
to have to switch now i'm not sure

[hallvard_lillehammer]: what i make of that argument it's
it's it's an

[pj_wehry]: um

[hallvard_lillehammer]: argument a purpose and argument you can
talk about it for a long time but

[pj_wehry]: yep

[hallvard_lillehammer]: it's one way of trying to at
least make it intuitively plausible by introducing

[pj_wehry]: ah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: a further complication which is of course
often what happens to these cases to to

[hallvard_lillehammer]: motivate the idea that is permissible either
obligatory or impermissible thomson of course to make

[hallvard_lillehammer]: things even more complicated eventually changed her
mind

[pj_wehry]: uh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: decided it was

[pj_wehry]: h

[hallvard_lillehammer]: forbidden to switch so yeah

[pj_wehry]: just just to make the record a
little mercy or i love it i want

[pj_wehry]: to go back to something that you
said you talked about the whole goal of

[pj_wehry]: this and ethics in general is to
live well um m can you

[hallvard_lillehammer]: oh

[pj_wehry]: as you've studied this throughout how has
this helped you to live better and what

[pj_wehry]: do you think is

[hallvard_lillehammer]: yeah

[pj_wehry]: the value overall of ethics to live
well what do you mean by that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: well so so one thing that this
problem brings to light is the sense of

[hallvard_lillehammer]: being as it were lost in the
weeds when it comes to explaining your ethical

[hallvard_lillehammer]: ethical convictions and so it often produces
a sense of bit mont remember the first

[hallvard_lillehammer]: time i was introduced to a philosophical
thought experiment like this it wasn't

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: a trolly problem was a similar problem
when i was at school

[pj_wehry]: i

[hallvard_lillehammer]: at the end of the class because
it had been a resolution one of the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: students stood up yes but teacher what's
the answer felt like they had been cheated

[hallvard_lillehammer]: right because you know after all we
were going to work out what to do

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that was a sense of frustration i
mean i think some students if the if

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the discussion goes a certain way where
it becomes more like a game than something

[hallvard_lillehammer]: serious may think that who cares there's
no answer there's no better and worse you

[hallvard_lillehammer]: know ethics is just a joke right

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: i think there is there is a
slight subversive potential to this kind of way

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of thinking about philosophy i think it
can be dangerous and it can be responsibly

[hallvard_lillehammer]: applied i think that is something that
needs to be brought into mind of one

[hallvard_lillehammer]: of the things important for me so
it is to answer your question not talk

[hallvard_lillehammer]: about something else

[pj_wehry]: all good

[hallvard_lillehammer]: it's that one of the things we
can we can bring to light is by

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thinking about these difficult cases what are
the things that are not negotiable there are

[hallvard_lillehammer]: various things that are negotiable

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: but there are certain kinds of ways
in which whoever is making a claim within

[hallvard_lillehammer]: this literature it's somehow keeping their moral
bearings okay the simplest way of thinking about

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that is as follows does the fact
that nobody has found the generally accepted solution

[hallvard_lillehammer]: to the troy problem is that an
argument of being skeptical about ever being the

[hallvard_lillehammer]: right thing to do no because no
one is suggesting if you have original trolley

[hallvard_lillehammer]: case with five people on one on
one track and one on the other it

[hallvard_lillehammer]: would be much nicer if they were
both on the same so you could kill

[hallvard_lillehammer]: them all no one is suggesting that
so whether you're a consequentialist who thinks that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: you should always minimize the bad maxim
good

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: or whether you're what nowadays call a
nonconsequentialist s looking for a set up principles

[hallvard_lillehammer]: or constraints and when you shouldn't there
are certain kinds of things that are not

[hallvard_lillehammer]: negotiable

[pj_wehry]: my

[hallvard_lillehammer]: even the nonconsequentialists agree most of them
everything is controversial in philosophy that the consequences

[pj_wehry]: right

[hallvard_lillehammer]: matter right

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and so we have

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: there are certain kinds of things there's
like a moral let's call it a background

[hallvard_lillehammer]: at is kept ah that is kept
fixed and the same is true outside of

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the literature on the trolly problem where
people are being confronted with examples that found

[hallvard_lillehammer]: them it's usually assumed that there are
certain options that are not the table we

[hallvard_lillehammer]: reflect

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: on that we

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: add that to the conversation that they
are not on the table we can learn

[hallvard_lillehammer]: more

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: about now what fundamental moral commitments are
and if we share them that is something

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and i think for me having been
being one of these people who doubt all

[hallvard_lillehammer]: the time

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that has been

[pj_wehry]: yeah

[hallvard_lillehammer]: quite an interesting investigation to sort of
to work out what are the things that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: are negotiable and what are the things
still not negotiable what re the things that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: what are the trends that we seem
to agree about and what are the things

[hallvard_lillehammer]: that we see to disagree about m

[pj_wehry]: and i think that's great when you
talk about living well um there's a lot

[pj_wehry]: of disagreement about what living well ould
be but there's actually quite a lot of

[pj_wehry]: agreement about what it isn't right like
i mean there's a lot of like you

[pj_wehry]: know you'll have different tracks of life
with

[hallvard_lillehammer]: oh

[pj_wehry]: different ways of life but they all
look at like someone living in type of

[pj_wehry]: life and be like yeah that's not
good like even the person living that life

[pj_wehry]: will may agree um i'm personally just
very happy and i was hoping it would

[pj_wehry]: come up at some point have you
seen probably the most fame internet video about

[pj_wehry]: the trolley problem

[hallvard_lillehammer]: had

[pj_wehry]: it's

[hallvard_lillehammer]: a very

[pj_wehry]: a

[hallvard_lillehammer]: quick look at it

[pj_wehry]: it's the it's the the one with
the toddler um and the dad says how

[pj_wehry]: would you solve this and the young
boy takes all of them and puts them

[pj_wehry]: on one side and runs over all
of them and so i've that you mentioned

[pj_wehry]: that as an example because the reason
that's funny is because everyone's like well yeah

[pj_wehry]: that's that's wrong right like and that's
like it's hilarious that a tailor would do

[pj_wehry]: that and one that video as though
father of seven and five year old in

[pj_wehry]: a five yearold who has just uh
as kindly as i can say it has

[pj_wehry]: a pension for violence really that video
spoke to me but also i think that

[pj_wehry]: that is very important because a lot
of what i want to do with this

[pj_wehry]: podcast is to create common ground for
common action right for the common good and

[pj_wehry]: uh there's so much you know controvert
so that you know i love that you

[pj_wehry]: know every bit of the trolley problem
brings in that kind of controversy but like

[pj_wehry]: if you just brought

[hallvard_lillehammer]: oh

[pj_wehry]: in it to the thing like these

[hallvard_lillehammer]: oh

[pj_wehry]: things i think that's just a great
point that there there's actually quite a bit

[pj_wehry]: we agree on right and i love
that you started with that

[hallvard_lillehammer]: and

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: there's also i think there's ways of
disagreeing about difficult ethical cases where the opposite

[hallvard_lillehammer]: side can respect what's happening among the
people who don't take exactly their view

[pj_wehry]: m

[hallvard_lillehammer]: so even if the even if there
isn't convergence and what one should do in

[hallvard_lillehammer]: a certain moral dilemma say there are
certain kinds of options that may be in

[hallvard_lillehammer]: some sense at least on the table
even if it's not the one that you

[hallvard_lillehammer]: prefer and be able to identify what
those are

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: to think about what the considerations are
that would lead you to have that respect

[hallvard_lillehammer]: for the person who acts otherwise than
than you do is itself something you can

[hallvard_lillehammer]: learn by thinking about these cases

[pj_wehry]: absolutely um dr lillehammer this has been
awesome if you could leave our listeners with

[pj_wehry]: one take away from today what would
it be

[hallvard_lillehammer]: well this is these are very challenging
times so

[pj_wehry]: uh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: i would say

[pj_wehry]: oh

[hallvard_lillehammer]: don't lose the courage of your moral
convictions

[pj_wehry]: m

[pj_wehry]: that is i i love the very
gentle rebuke embodied in that what a great

[pj_wehry]: way to sum up what we have
talked about today do little hammer it's been

[pj_wehry]: absolute joy to talk to you today
thank or coming on

[hallvard_lillehammer]: thanks for having me kay