Bruers And Brackman's Paper

In Bruers and Brackman’s work, A Review and Systemization of the Trolley Problem, they offer many other variants to the fat man being “But this time a heavy stone is located behind the man on the side track. The man on the side track is not heavy enough to stop the trolley. The stone will block the trolley if you turn the switch. But the man in front of the stone will die.” (Bruers and Brackman 254) By implementing the stone into the situation the survey actually showed that the percentage of people switching the trolley increased up to 75% from the 50% taken from the standard Loop case. Later in the article, however, they speculate that this increase is because of the stone being seen as a means of stopping the trolley rather than the man. Bruers and
By analyzing Bruers and Brackman’s paper, it is nearly clearly stated why one should expect a theory to accomplish this. It is only inferred that a theory should work in this way for applicability and determinacy. This would be a great virtue of a moral theory but for a current theory to obtain this virtue is unlikely based on clear differences in moral intuitions shown throughout the trolley cases. Both Kaufman and Bruers and Brackman’s works reference causal chains with the trolley variants. On analyzing Kaufman’s section of causal chains, Kaufman appears disorganized and slightly confused in his approach to explaining it. Even when referencing a moral professor Kaufman’s points were hard to decipher from his passage. Bruers and Brackman’s explanation is much more clear in explanation and use effective examples to illustrate. However, there are multiple situations in their works where confusion arises just like Kaufman’s. They say at one point in their use of causal chains, “It might be the case that the trolley is too fast and is able to kill all six people, because all six