Chapter 4 Exercises

Exercise 1: The Trolley Problem Suite

Work through the following variations of the trolley problem. For each one, note your immediate intuition (yes/no), then try to articulate the reason behind it using at least one of the three frameworks.

Variation A — The Standard Lever Case A runaway trolley is heading toward five workers. You can pull a lever to divert it to a side track, where one worker stands. Do you pull the lever?

Variation B — The Bridge Case Same trolley, five workers. You're on a bridge with a large man. Pushing him off would stop the trolley with his body. Do you push him?

Variation C — The Loop Track The side track loops back to the main track. Pulling the lever will only stop the trolley if it hits the one worker on the loop — his body would stop it before it merges back with the main track. Pull the lever?

Variation D — The Transplant A surgeon has five patients who will die without organ transplants. In the waiting room is a healthy patient with a routine complaint whose organs are a perfect match for all five. Should the surgeon kill the healthy patient to harvest their organs and save the five?

Variation E — The Trolley with a Name Everything is the same as Variation A — but you personally know the one worker on the side track. He's your close friend. Does this change the moral calculus? Should it?

After working through these, discuss: do your intuitions stay consistent across the variations? Where do they diverge from the framework predictions? What does that divergence tell you?

Exercise 2: Journal — The Decision You're Still Not Sure About

Set a timer for twenty minutes. Write freely about a moral decision you made — something you actually did (or didn't do) — that you're still not sure was right. It doesn't have to be dramatic. It might be: telling someone a difficult truth when staying quiet would have been easier. Or staying quiet when speaking would have been hard. A betrayal. A loyalty that cost someone else. A moment when you took the easy path and knew it.

Answer these questions as you write: - What did you actually do? - What was driving the choice at the time? Were you thinking about consequences, duties, or what kind of person you wanted to be? - Which of the three frameworks would have given you clearer guidance? Do you wish you'd followed it? - If you could go back and choose again, what would you do? Why?

This is private writing. Be honest with yourself.

Exercise 3: The Dialogue — Utilitarian vs. Kantian

Write a dialogue (minimum 500 words) between two characters: a strict utilitarian named Ursula and a strict Kantian named Klaus. The situation: Ursula and Klaus have discovered that their friend David is cheating on his partner Mei. They're trying to decide whether to tell Mei.

Ursula argues from consequences: what outcome produces the most welfare? She considers Mei's welfare (would she want to know?), David's welfare (what happens if he's exposed?), the friendship network (what happens to everyone involved?), and the general consequences of "tell everyone when partners cheat" vs. "stay out of it."

Klaus argues from duty: what does morality require regardless of consequences? He considers: what duty do they have to Mei as a rational agent who deserves to know the truth? What duty do they have not to be complicit in deception? Does David have a right to privacy that limits their duty to Mei?

The dialogue should be genuinely contested — both characters make good points. Neither should be a strawman. Let them reach an impasse, or a partial agreement, or an unexpected convergence.

After writing the dialogue, add a short paragraph (your own voice): which character do you find more persuasive? Why?

Exercise 4: Dinner Party

Bentham, Kant, and Aristotle are at dinner together. (They have all been magically transported from their respective centuries; they speak excellent English.) The topic of conversation is: the use of social media algorithms that maximize user engagement, even when engagement is driven by outrage, anxiety, and social comparison.

Write the conversation (minimum 600 words). Consider: - What does Bentham think? (Welfare maximization — but whose welfare? What counts?) - What does Kant think? (Are users being treated as means or ends? Is the universalizability test satisfied?) - What does Aristotle think? (What kind of character are users developing? What kind of polis is being built? What is happening to friendship?) - What do they agree on? - What do they argue about fiercely? - Who orders dessert and what do they get? (Be human about this.)

Exercise 5: Framework Translation

Take a moral claim you actually believe — something you'd defend in an argument. It might be: "Sweatshop labor is wrong." "People shouldn't eat factory-farmed meat." "We should give more to charity." "The death penalty is wrong." Whatever you actually think.

Now state that claim in the language of all three frameworks:

Consequentialist version: "It's wrong because..." Kantian version: "It's wrong because..." Virtue ethics version: "It's wrong because..."

Which version feels most like your actual reason for believing the claim? Which version feels like a post-hoc rationalization? Which version reveals something about the claim you hadn't noticed before?

Progressive Project: Draft Your Ethics Section

Write the first section of your Personal Philosophy document, focused on ethics. This section should be 300–500 words and answer the following questions in your own voice:

1. Your moral starting point. When you face a genuine moral dilemma, what question do you find yourself reaching for first? "What will produce the best outcome?" "What is my duty?" "What would a person I admire do?" "What can I live with?" This isn't about what you think you should reach for — it's about what you actually do.

2. Your existing moral commitments. What are three or four things you believe with genuine conviction are morally wrong, regardless of context? What makes you confident about these?

3. Your framework mix. Based on this chapter, which framework (or combination of frameworks) most accurately describes how you actually reason about right and wrong? Where do you find one framework more useful than the others?

4. A commitment to revise. Write one sentence about a moral belief you currently hold that you're willing to question — that you'll examine over the rest of this book.

Save this. You'll add to it in Chapter 5 and revise it throughout the book.