English Webinars for Academics and Professionals
Join our short and effective web-talks on topics of academic and professional interest, delivered in clear English.
The talks introduce a number of focus words and phrases in English. The primary aim of the talk is not to teach the topic but to improve English.
The text further down this page highlights the phrases.
The Webinar may also be a useful point of contact among participating academics/professionals.
Available to individuals also.
Webinar Format
- Duration: 50 minutes
- 5 minutes introduction among participants
- 10-15 minute talk about the topic in English
- 20 – 30 minutes of discussion in English on both the topic and the English phrases
- Maximum participants 8
One to one Format
- Duration: 50 minutes
- presentation of the topic to participant
- discussion in English on both the topic and the English phrases, with advocacy role-play
- discussion and queries regarding pronunciation, listening, speaking and conversing
Topic: The Trolley Problem
Graphic illustration by McGeddon
This is a classic thought experiment in the philosophy of ethics, presenting us with difficult choices that are apparently morally questionable and irreconcilable. The Trolley Problem gives ample, almost unlimited opportunity for ethical rumination.
Scenario 1: The Railway Siding
A runaway trolley is barrelling down a rail track, directly towards five workers who cannot be warned to get out of the way in time. You see a lever that will divert the trolley onto a second track that lies to the side of the main track. However, there is another worker on the siding who also cannot be warned in time. What do you do?
Scenario 2: Big Chap on a Bridge
In this scenario there is only one track and it passes under a bridge. You are standing on the bridge and in front of you there is a very large chap sitting on the edge, dangling his legs, and eating an ice cream. He’s clearly enjoying his life. Nonetheless, you suddenly realise that if you push him off he would be large enough to stop the trolley before it gets to the five workers.
What would you do?
Note: more focus words and phrases are introduced in the session, and not all are mentioned here.
Ethical Considerations
For the siding scenario, one appears justified in sacrificing one life to save a greater number. But why?
First it makes sense. Five lives are saved at the cost of only one life. This is the utilitarian view, which maintains that an act is justifiable if it brings about a greater good. (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill)
Second, and more interestingly, we don’t feel so bad about it. It’s regrettable and will cause us sorrow, but it turns out most people would choose this course.
The interesting point is why don’t you feel so bad about it? The answer is probably because you did not intend that the worker be on the siding and therefore did not intend for him to die. His death is not the purpose of your action. It is an unavoidable and unfortunate consequence of a decision that would be taken anyway. You would switch the trolley irrespective of whether the workman was there or not. You can therefore not only claim to be acting sensibly, but also morally.
This kind of reasoning derives from the deontological framework of morality. Under this framework you are justified in sacrificing the worker because there is no intention to use him as a means to an end.
For the bridge scenario there is a strong argument that says it is not morally permissible to push the big chap. Though his death is not the actual purpose of your action, you nevertheless actually intend to use him to stop the trolley. You intend to use him as a means to an end.
Under the deontological moral system, developed and defended by Immanuel Kant, persons are ends in themselves, and therefore cannot be used as means. By using persons as means to ends we devalue them to the level of instruments, in some cases as dispensable objects. And that, under the deontological view, is morally indefensible for several reasons. First, the person would not wish to be devalued to the level of a tool. And second, we would not want the same for ourselves.
The deontological moral system makes it a duty to consider the interests of others fairly.
Some Interesting Variations of the Bridge Scenario
Are there any circumstances when the bridge scenario becomes morally permissible and perhaps even morally obligatory?
What if pushing the big chap off the bridge prevents a terrorist from detonating a nuclear bomb in a city of 5 million people?
Does it now become permissible to sacrifice his innocent life to save 5 million people? Does scale change the moral content?
What if the big chap is actually responsible for the runaway trolley, and he is actually sitting there eating an ice cream in anticipation of the drama to come?
Participation Guide
- Ask about words you do not understand
- Ask about pronunciation
- Query usage of phrases (e.g., formal, informal, academic etc.)
- Query concepts and ideas using English