Skip to content
PonderAtlas
← All field sheets

PonderAtlas printable field sheet

The Trolley Problem field sheet

Compare an initial intuition with competing accounts of ethics, then record the strongest objection and a revised position.

Short route
20 minutes
Deep route
50 minutes
Revised
2026-08-24

20-minute route

  1. 2 min: Read the topic setup on the canonical guide.
  2. 3 min: Record an initial answer before discussion.
  3. 10 min: Compare two reasons and test one variation.
  4. 5 min: Write the strongest objection and a revised position.

50-minute extension

  1. 5 min: Silent reading and first position.
  2. 15 min: Small-group reason mapping.
  3. 15 min: Swap positions and defend the strongest rival.
  4. 10 min: Test a nearby case or changed context.
  5. 5 min: Final reflection and remaining uncertainty.

Prompt sequence

  1. 01

    Does your verdict change between the switch and the footbridge case? Which distinction does the change follow?

  2. 02

    Is the difference between killing and letting die morally decisive here?

  3. 03

    Would a rule written for an automated system capture your reasoning, or flatten it?

Position and process cues

  • Consequentialist maximisation: Divert: the act saving more lives is better supported, whatever the mechanism.
  • Doctrine of double effect: Foreseen side-effect harm can be permissible where harm intended as a means is not.
  • Doing versus allowing: Redirecting an existing threat differs morally from imposing a new one, as in the footbridge.
  • Respect for persons: Using the one as an instrument violates a Kantian constraint that diverting a threat need not.
  • Virtue-centred reading: Ask what a practically wise, compassionate agent would attend to, rather than derive verdicts from rules.