Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Would You Kill the Fat Man?
    Would You Kill the Fat Man?
    Would You Kill the Fat Man?
    Audiobook5 hours

    Would You Kill the Fat Man?

    Written by David Edmonds

    Narrated by Gareth Armstrong

    4/5

    ()

    About this audiobook

    A train is racing toward five men, tied to the track. Unless the train is stopped, it will inevitably kill all five men. If a fat man is pushed onto the line, although he will die, his body will stop the train, saving five lives. Would you kill the fat man?
    As David Edmonds shows, answering the question is far more complex, and important, than it first appears. In fact, how we answer it tells us a great deal about right and wrong.

    ‘This is a highly engaging book. David Edmonds' reflections are full of insight' ROGER CRISP, University of Oxford
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherW. F. Howes Ltd
    Release dateJan 9, 2014
    ISBN9781471252822
    Would You Kill the Fat Man?
    Author

    David Edmonds

    David Edmonds is an award-winning journalists with the BBC. He's the bestselling authors of Bobby Fischer Goes to War and Wittgenstein’s Poker.

    More audiobooks from David Edmonds

    Related to Would You Kill the Fat Man?

    Related audiobooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Can Humanism Save Us?

      Apr 5, 2023

      Can Humanism Save Us?
      5 min read

    • Article

      Q&A YOU ASK, WE ANSWER

      Mar 16, 2023

      Q&A YOU ASK, WE ANSWER
      6 min read

    • Article

      As Everybody Knows…

      Nov 4, 2021

      From Mozart’s Murder to Cleopatra’s Asp Graeme Donald Michael O’Mara 2021 Pb, 256pp, £7.99, ISBN 9781789293623 Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World Otto English Wellbeck 2021 Hb, 320pp, £16.99, ISBN 9781787396395 You wait all day for a scepti

      4 min read

    • Article

      Explaining the Donald

      May 19, 2022

      The Magical and Occult Roots of Political Power John Michael Greer Inner Traditions 2021 Pb, 201pp, £12.99, ISBN 9781644112588 Donald Trump may be the ultimate anomalous phenomenon – at least for our age. How did an elderly American real estate and e

      8 min read

    • Article

      Q&A YOU ASK, WE ANSWER

      Oct 29, 2020

      Q&A YOU ASK, WE ANSWER
      8 min read

    • Article

      Letters

      Nov 24, 2022

      In November’s Letters, Jenny Martin requested a feature on Queen Margaret of Scotland (c1045–93). However, the Saxon Princess Margaret of Wessex – as she was also known – is not all she seems. Rightly revered as a saint, her legacy was, though, not a

      4 min read

    • Article

      Book Reviews

      May 31, 2021

      Adam Cruise | Tafelberg | 9780624091578 | R295 It’s not about the bats, it’s about you and me – and our governments. The Covid-19 pandemic put the spotlight on how human expansion has led to an increase in zoonotic viruses jumping species, and calls

      5 min read

    • Article

      Books

      Oct 17, 2022

      Books
      6 min read

    • Article

      How To Survive The Blitz

      Mar 29, 2020

      How To Survive The Blitz
      8 min read

    • Article

      Blood Brothers

      Jan 1, 2019

      Blood Brothers
      8 min read

    • Article

      The Old Un’s Notes

      Jun 30, 2021

      * Have Oldie-readers who wear glasses ever thought where specs come from? The answer lies in a new book, Through the Looking Glasses: The Spectacular Life of Spectacles, by Travis Elborough. Elborough, himself bespectacled, traces the history of spec

      6 min read

    • Article

      “The Reality Of Colditz Is Much More Interesting Than The Black-and-white Moral Fable”

      Sep 29, 2022

      In your new book you discuss a myth of Colditz that needs to be challenged. What is this myth and how did it come about? Those of us of a certain age grew up with the great BBC TV series about Colditz and, also, in my case, the board game Escape from

      11 min read

    • Article

      Q&A

      Dec 28, 2022

      Q&A
      2 min read

    • Article

      TV, FILM & RADIO

      Jun 10, 2021

      TV, FILM & RADIO
      5 min read

    • Article

      Car-Toon Celebration

      Nov 23, 2023

      I enjoyed John Wills' feature on the history of Disney (December), and it made me wonder if anyone else remembers a marketing idea used by Disney in the 1930s. My late mother was born on 28 September 1928. When she was eight or nine years old, she re

      3 min read

    • Article

      Q&A

      Jun 9, 2022

      Q&A
      4 min read

    • Article

      Q&A YOU ASK, WE ANSWER

      Dec 29, 2020

      Q&A YOU ASK, WE ANSWER
      8 min read

    • Article

      TV, FILM & RADIO

      Feb 16, 2023

      TV, FILM & RADIO
      5 min read

    • Article

      A Village in the Third Reich

      May 4, 2022

      Elliott & Thompson £25 Take a small English country town – Sherborne, say, or Kendal – picture-postcard cute and surrounded by beautiful landscape. Then imagine it after a defeat in war, a sixth of its men dead, chaos in the capital, hyper-inflation

      3 min read

    • Article

      Reviews

      Mar 25, 2021

      Reviews
      6 min read

    • Article

      They Made History

      Jul 13, 2022

      They Made History
      8 min read

    • Article

      Reviews

      May 13, 2021

      Reviews
      6 min read

    • Article

      Reviews

      Nov 28, 2019

      Reviews
      8 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Would You Kill the Fat Man?

    4/5

    47 ratings5 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      I've read two books on the same subject, The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge by Dave Cathcart and David Edmonds's Would You Kill the Fat Man/, so I thought that I would compare them. The original version, by British philosopher Phillipa Foot, involved a tram, of course. In her original, the question involved the driver of a runaway tram, but the more familiar version involves a bystander. Suppose a runaway trolley/tram is headed toward five people who cannot get off the track. You are standing near a switch, and can divert the trolley/tram onto another track where only one person will be struck. Should you do it? This version is called the Spur. The unfortunately named “Fat Man” variation, created by Judith Jarvis Thomson, assumes that a light-weight, but apparently extremely strong, bystander is on a bridge overlooking a runaway trolley, again menacing five people. Also on the bridge is a fat man so heavy that his body would stop the trolley and save the five people. Would you throw him off and stop the trolley? (I am sorry if it offends anyone, I'm obese myself, but that's what the case is called.) Should you throw him off, since this also trades one life for five? Or, should you kill a healthy patient if his organs could be donated to save fine other patients.These two versions have inspired surveys of both philosophers and laypeople, as well as neurological studies of how the brain reacts. The surveys show that by overwhelming margins, both philosophers and laypeople would throw the switch, but not the Fat Man. The latter problem affects the emotional centers of the brain, apparently the thought of laying violent hands on the man would stop most people.Something which disappoints me about both books is that the original case was supposed to have to do with abortion, which neither author explains; the connection is not obvious to me. Apparently, the connection is the Doctrine of Double Effects, explained in both books, but a tram does not seem like an apt example. I am also disappointed that neither mentions Michael F. Patton Jr.'s "Tissues in the Profession: Can Bad Men Make Good Brains do Bad Things," on Mindspring, surely the Trolley Problem to end all Trolley Problems. (The Wikipedia article on the Trolley Problem has link to it.) Cathcart does have a reference to it buried in the notes.There are many additional variants, developed by by various writers, including Frances Kamm. Edmonds covers these much better than Cathcart, including ten all together, gathered handily into an appendix for easy reference. The problem is that implications of many of these are not well developed. Edmonds tells us what Kamm, for example thinks is acceptable or not, but doesn't explain her thinking. The other problem, which is not a criticism of Edmonds, is that many of them become so intricate and implausible that I think they add little to the subject. It appears that these have not been studied like the two primary cases. Of the eight additional cases, it appears to me that only the Loop and the Trap Door and the Lazy Susan, all variations of the Fat Man scenario tease out any meaningful nuances by eliminating some of the objections to pushing the unfortunate sacrificial victim. (Lazy Susan also has an element of the Spur.) Most of the others strike me as so ridiculous that I cannot think seriously about them, and I reach again for my copy of Patton's parody.Cathcart's is the simpler and lighter of the two books, and rather more fun to read. His scenario is that one Daphne Jones is to be tried in the Court of Public Opinion for diverting the trolley in the first example. Statements from defense and prosecution lawyers, amicus curiae, newspapers articles, talks in the faculty lounge and so forth spell out the problems, relevant issues, and similar cases. He includes sidebars on various philosophers whose ideas have a bearing on how we might judge the case. I actually prefer the sidebars to working the same information into his narratives, but curiously he has little to say about Phillipa Foot.Edmonds, on the other hand, includes a narrative about Foot and her associates, such as Iris Murdoch and G.E.M. (Elizabeth) Anscombe. These don't particularly explain her ideas, however, rather it sets the scene of her life, sharing an apartment, shoes, and lovers with Murdock; her friendship and eventual estrangement from Anscombe. We actually learn more about Anscombe's ideas than Foot's. Edmonds also talks about other more real life situations that might seem to apply such as cannibalism among shipwreck survivors. These may strike the reader as interesting in themselves, or as excessively tangential. The chief importance of Anscombe, in my opinion, is that she is referenced in Patton's parody.I read both books twice, so I recommend them both. Neither is terribly long and both are interesting.
    • 5/5
      I received this book free through Goodreads. As a parent of two young adults I enjoyed this book. We discussed the dilemma, the choices, repercussions and more. I thoroughly enjoyed this book
    • 5/5
      Would You Kill the Fat Man?By David EdmondsI don't know where I was in college but I had never heard of the Trolley problem. When I read this title and was intrigued. When I was reading it I found the book more than philosophy, it has history and science in it too! The debate on this problem and others are discussed and many different philosophers' points or opinions on each problem is discussed. Each varies in how they solve the problem. As the book goes through history, similar problems occur in real life. The different philosopher's views would be weighed on each situation. An interesting walk through time.Then the scientists who can change a persons view on just about everything from sex, acceptance of others, and more. How hormones, chemicals, and medicines effect our brain. Injuries or disease too!I found this book very interesting and intriguing. Some of the questions or situations are very strange but makes people think!No, I would not kill the Fat man. Sorry.
    • 5/5
      I received this book free through Goodreads. As a parent of two young adults I enjoyed this book. We discussed the dilemma, the choices, repercussions and more. I thoroughly enjoyed this book
    • 4/5
      I've read two books on the same subject, The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge by Dave Cathcart and David Edmonds's Would You Kill the Fat Man/, so I thought that I would compare them. The original version, by British philosopher Phillipa Foot, involved a tram, of course. In her original, the question involved the driver of a runaway tram, but the more familiar version involves a bystander. Suppose a runaway trolley/tram is headed toward five people who cannot get off the track. You are standing near a switch, and can divert the trolley/tram onto another track where only one person will be struck. Should you do it? This version is called the Spur. The unfortunately named “Fat Man” variation, created by Judith Jarvis Thomson, assumes that a light-weight, but apparently extremely strong, bystander is on a bridge overlooking a runaway trolley, again menacing five people. Also on the bridge is a fat man so heavy that his body would stop the trolley and save the five people. Would you throw him off and stop the trolley? (I am sorry if it offends anyone, I'm obese myself, but that's what the case is called.) Should you throw him off, since this also trades one life for five? Or, should you kill a healthy patient if his organs could be donated to save fine other patients.These two versions have inspired surveys of both philosophers and laypeople, as well as neurological studies of how the brain reacts. The surveys show that by overwhelming margins, both philosophers and laypeople would throw the switch, but not the Fat Man. The latter problem affects the emotional centers of the brain, apparently the thought of laying violent hands on the man would stop most people.Something which disappoints me about both books is that the original case was supposed to have to do with abortion, which neither author explains; the connection is not obvious to me. Apparently, the connection is the Doctrine of Double Effects, explained in both books, but a tram does not seem like an apt example. I am also disappointed that neither mentions Michael F. Patton Jr.'s "Tissues in the Profession: Can Bad Men Make Good Brains do Bad Things," on Mindspring, surely the Trolley Problem to end all Trolley Problems. (The Wikipedia article on the Trolley Problem has link to it.) Cathcart does have a reference to it buried in the notes.There are many additional variants, developed by by various writers, including Frances Kamm. Edmonds covers these much better than Cathcart, including ten all together, gathered handily into an appendix for easy reference. The problem is that implications of many of these are not well developed. Edmonds tells us what Kamm, for example thinks is acceptable or not, but doesn't explain her thinking. The other problem, which is not a criticism of Edmonds, is that many of them become so intricate and implausible that I think they add little to the subject. It appears that these have not been studied like the two primary cases. Of the eight additional cases, it appears to me that only the Loop and the Trap Door and the Lazy Susan, all variations of the Fat Man scenario tease out any meaningful nuances by eliminating some of the objections to pushing the unfortunate sacrificial victim. (Lazy Susan also has an element of the Spur.) Most of the others strike me as so ridiculous that I cannot think seriously about them, and I reach again for my copy of Patton's parody.Cathcart's is the simpler and lighter of the two books, and rather more fun to read. His scenario is that one Daphne Jones is to be tried in the Court of Public Opinion for diverting the trolley in the first example. Statements from defense and prosecution lawyers, amicus curiae, newspapers articles, talks in the faculty lounge and so forth spell out the problems, relevant issues, and similar cases. He includes sidebars on various philosophers whose ideas have a bearing on how we might judge the case. I actually prefer the sidebars to working the same information into his narratives, but curiously he has little to say about Phillipa Foot.Edmonds, on the other hand, includes a narrative about Foot and her associates, such as Iris Murdoch and G.E.M. (Elizabeth) Anscombe. These don't particularly explain her ideas, however, rather it sets the scene of her life, sharing an apartment, shoes, and lovers with Murdock; her friendship and eventual estrangement from Anscombe. We actually learn more about Anscombe's ideas than Foot's. Edmonds also talks about other more real life situations that might seem to apply such as cannibalism among shipwreck survivors. These may strike the reader as interesting in themselves, or as excessively tangential. The chief importance of Anscombe, in my opinion, is that she is referenced in Patton's parody.I read both books twice, so I recommend them both. Neither is terribly long and both are interesting.