Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T03:36:26.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2023

Hallvard Lillehammer
Affiliation:
Birkbeck, University of London
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Trolley Problem , pp. 244 - 263
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abarbanell, L., & Hauser, M. D. 2010. “Mayan morality: An exploration of permissible harmsCognition 115: 207224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aghab Babaee, N. 2011. “Trolley dilemma and its implication in active and passive euthanasiaIranian Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine 4: 6572.Google Scholar
Ahlenius, H., & Tännsjö, T. 2012. “Chinese and Westerners respond differently to the trolley dilemmasJournal of Cognition and Culture 12: 195201.Google Scholar
Alexander, J. 2013. “Getting Better,” Workshop in honour of Philip Kitcher, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, November 7, 2013.Google Scholar
Alexander, J. 2019. “Is there an objective morality?” IAI TV 73, May 20, 2019, https://iai.tv/articles/is-there-an-objective-morality-auid-1237Google Scholar
Alexander, L., & Ferzan, K. K. (with S. Morse). 2009. Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andrade, G. 2019. “Medical ethics and the trolley problemJournal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine 12: 3.Google Scholar
Annas, J. 2011. Intelligent Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Annas, J. 2015. “Virtue and duty: Negotiating between different ethical traditionsThe Journal of Value Inquiry 49: 605618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1958. “Modern moral philosophyPhilosophy 33: 119.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1967. “Who is wronged? Philippa foot on double effect: One pointOxford Review 5: 1617.Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. Unknown/2006. Summa Theologiae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 2009. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by David Ross, revised by Lesley Brown. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arutyunova, K. R., Alexandrov, Y. I., & Hauser, M. D. 2016. “Sociocultural influences on moral judgments: East–west, male–female, and young–oldFrontiers in Psychology 7: 1334.Google Scholar
Avram, M., Hennig-Fast, K., Bao, Y., Pöppel, E., Reiser, M., Blautzik, J., … Gutyrchik, E. 2014. “Neural correlates of moral judgments in first-and third-person perspectives: Implications for neuroethics and beyondBMC Neuroscience 15: 111.Google Scholar
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Shulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., … Rahwan, I. 2018. “The moral machine experimentNature 563: 5964.Google Scholar
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I., & Bonnefon, J. F. 2020. “Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participantsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117: 23322337.Google Scholar
Axtell, G., & Olson, P. 2012. “Recent work in applied virtue ethicsAmerican Philosophical Quarterly 49: 183203.Google Scholar
Bago, B., Aczel, B., Kekecs, Z., Protzko, J., Kovacs, M., Nagy, T., … Gjoneska, B. Under review. “Moral thinking across the world: Exploring the influence of personal force and intention in moral dilemma judgments.”Google Scholar
Bago, B., & De Neys, W. 2019. “The intuitive greater good: Testing the corrective dual process model of moral cognition” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148: 17821801. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000533Google Scholar
Bago, B., Kovacs, M., Protzko, J., Nagy, T., Kekecs, Z., Palfi, B., … Matibag, C. J. 2022. “Situational factors shape moral judgments in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern, and Western countries in a culturally diverse sampleNature Human Behaviour 6: 880895.Google Scholar
Balleine, B. W., & O’Doherty, J. P. 2010. “Human and rodent homologies in action control: Corticostriatal determinants of goal-directed and habitual actionNeuropsychopharmacology 35: 4869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banerjee, K., Huebner, B., & Hauser, M. 2010. “Intuitive moral judgments are robust across variation in gender, education, politics and religion: A large-scale web-based studyJournal of Cognition and Culture 10: 253281.Google Scholar
Baron, J. 1994. “Nonconsequentialist decisionsBehavioral and Brain Sciences 17: 110.Google Scholar
Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro, D. A. 2011. “The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas” Cognition 121: 154161.Google Scholar
Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. 2014. “Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology: External validity in moral psychology” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8: 536554. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12131Google Scholar
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E. J., Berk, R., … Johnson, V. E. 2018. “Redefine statistical significanceNature Human Behaviour 2: 610.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1980. Morality and Consequences. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Online: https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/b/bennett81.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. 1995. The Act Itself. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berker, S. 2009. “The normative insignificance of neurosciencePhilosophy and Public Affairs 37: 293329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, R. M., Chaponis, J., Siburian, R., Gallagher, P., Ransohoff, K., Wikler, D., … Greene, J. D. 2016. “Variation in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) is associated with differences in moral judgmentSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 11: 18721881.Google Scholar
Blair, R. J. R. 2007. “The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathyTrends in Cognitive Sciences 11: 387392.Google Scholar
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. 2015. “Autonomous vehicles need experimental ethics: Are we ready for utilitarian cars?” arXiv:1510.03346 [cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03346Google Scholar
Bonnefon, J.‐F., Sharrif, A., & Rahwan, I. 2016. “The social dilemma of autonomous vehiclesScience 352: 15731576.Google Scholar
Bostyn, D. H., & Roets, A. 2017. “Trust, trolleys and social dilemmas: A replication studyJournal of Experimental Psychology: General 146: e1e7. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000295Google Scholar
Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. 2018. “Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmasPsychological Science 29: 10841093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752640Google Scholar
Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. 2019. “Beyond physical harm: How preference for consequentialism and primary psychopathy relate to decisions on a monetary trolley dilemmaThinking & Reasoning 25: 192206.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 1984. “Two faces of intentionPhilosophical Review 93: 375405.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 1987. Intentions, Plans and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. 2017. “Is pulling the lever sexy? Deontology as a downstream cue to long-term mate qualityJournal of Social and Personal Relationships. 36 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517749331Google Scholar
Business Insider. 2016. “Why Mercedes plans to let its self-driving cars kill pedestrians in dicey situations” www.businessinsider.nl/mercedes-benz-self-driving-cars-programmed-save-driver-2016-10/Google Scholar
Buss, S., & Westlund, A. 2018. “Personal autonomy” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), E. N. Zalta (Ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/personal-autonomy/Google Scholar
Byrd, N., & Conway, P. 2019. “Not all who ponder count costs: Arithmetic reflection predicts utilitarian tendencies, but logical reflection predicts both deontological and utilitarian tendenciesCognition 192: 103995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, R., & Kumar, V. 2012. Moral reasoning on the groundEthics 122: 273312.Google Scholar
Capraro, V., Everett, J. A. C., & Earp, B. D. 2020. “Priming intuition decreases instrumental harm but not impartial beneficenceJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 83: 142149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, S. M. 2017. “Overdiagnosis, ethics, and trolley problems: Why factors other than outcomes matterBMJ 358: j3872.Google Scholar
Caviola, L., Schubert, S., & Greene, J. D. 2021. The psychology of (in)Effective altruism” Trends in Cognitive Sciences”.Google Scholar
Caviola, L., Greene, J.D. 2021/under review. Boosting the impact of human altruism”.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). 1999. Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology (Vol. xiii). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Chen, C., Decety, J., Huang, P. C., Chen, C. Y., & Cheng, Y. 2016. Testosterone administration in females modulates moral judgment and patterns of brain activation and functional connectivityHuman Brain Mapping, 37: 34173430.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures The Hague/Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciaramelli, E., Muccioli, M., Làdavas, E., & di Pellegrino, G. 2007. Selective deficit in personal moral judgment following damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortexSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 2: 8492.Google Scholar
Clarkson, E., & Jasper, J. D. 2022. “Individual differences in moral judgment predict attitudes towards mandatory vaccinations” Personality and Individual Differences 186: 111391.Google Scholar
Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. 2013. “Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: A process dissociation approachJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 104: 216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D., & Greene, J. D. 2018. “Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers” Cognition 179: 241265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.018Google Scholar
Costa, A., Foucart, A., Hayakawa, S., Aparici, M., Apesteguia, J., Heafner, J., et al. 2014. “Your morals depend on languagePLoS ONE 9: e94842. /https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094842Google Scholar
Cova, F., Strickland, B., Abatista, A., Allard, A., Andow, J., Attie, M., … Zhou, X. 2021. “Estimating the reproducibility of experimental philosophyReview of Philosophy and Psychology 12: 944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, C. F., Keven, N., Kwan, D., Kurczek, J., Duff, M. C., & Rosenbaum, R. S. 2016. Moral judgment in episodic amnesiaHippocampus 26: 975979.Google Scholar
Crockett, M. J. 2013. “Models of moralityTrends in Cognitive Sciences 17: 363366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.005Google Scholar
Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Hauser, M. D., & Robbins, T. W. 2010. Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversionProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 1743317438.Google Scholar
Cunneen, M., Mullins, M., Murphy, F., Shannon, D. Furxhi, I., & Ryan, C. 2019. “Autonomous vehicles and avoiding the trolley (dilemma): Vehicle perception, classification, and the challenges of framing decision ethicsCybernetics and Systems 51: 5980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtin, C. M., Barrett, H. C., Bolyanatz, A., Crittenden, A. N., Fessler, D. M., Fitzpatrick, S., … & Henrich, J. 2020. “Kinship intensity and the use of mental states in moral judgment across societiesEvolution and Human Behavior 41: 415429.Google Scholar
Cushman, F. 2013. Action, outcome, and value: A dual-system framework for moralityPersonality and Social Psychology Review 17: 273292.Google Scholar
Cushman, F., Gray, K., Gaffey, A., & Mendes, W. B. 2012. “Simulating murder: The aversion to harmful actionEmotion 12: 27. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025071Google Scholar
Cushman, F., & Greene, J. D. 2012. Finding faults: How moral dilemmas illuminate cognitive structureSocial Neuroscience 7: 269279.Google Scholar
Cushman, F., Murray, D., Gordon-McKeon, S., Wharton, S., & Greene, J. D. 2012. “Judgment before principle: Engagement of the frontoparietal control network in condemning harms of omissionSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 7: 888895.Google Scholar
Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. 2006. The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harmPsychological Science 17: 10821089.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G.P. Putnam.Google Scholar
Dancy, J. 2004. Ethics without Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darby, R. R., Horn, A., Cushman, F., & Fox, M. D. 2018. “Lesion network localization of criminal behaviorProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 601606.Google Scholar
Davnall, R. 2019. “Solving the single-vehicle self-driving car trolley problem using risk theory and vehicle dynamicsScience and Engineering Ethics 26: 431449.Google Scholar
Daw, N. D., & Doya, K. 2006. The computational neurobiology of learning and rewardCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology 16: 199204.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J. M. 2004. Blistering barnacles! What language do multilinguals swear in?Estudios de Sociolinguistica 5: 83105.Google Scholar
Dickinson, A., Balleine, B., Watt, A., Gonzalez, F., & Boakes, R. A. 1995. Motivational control after extended instrumental trainingAnimal Learning & Behavior 23: 197206.Google Scholar
Di Nucci, E. 2009. “Simply, falseAnalysis 69: 6978.Google Scholar
Di Nucci, E. 2010. “Rational constraints and the simple viewAnalysis 70: 481486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Nucci, E. 2013a. “Self-sacrifice and the trolley problemPhilosophical Psychology 26: 662672.Google Scholar
Di Nucci, E. 2013b. “Embryo loss and double effectJournal of Medical Ethics 39: 537540.Google Scholar
Di Nucci, E. 2014a. Ethics without Intention. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Di Nucci, E. 2014b. “Contraception and double effectThe American Journal of Bioethics 14: 4243.Google Scholar
Di Nucci, E. 2021. “The vicious circle of precaution” JME Blog https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/18/the-vicious-circle-of-precautionGoogle Scholar
Doris, J. M., & Plakias, A. 2008. “How to argue about disagreement: Evaluative diversity and moral realism” In Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Ed.), Moral Psychology, Vol. 2. The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity. 303331. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Edmonds, D. 2013. Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and Wrong. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, A. M. & Brandt, M. J. 2019. “Comparing the effects of hypothetical moral preferences on real-Life and hypothetical behavior: commentary on bostyn, sevenhant, and roets (2018)Psychological Science 30: 13801382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, J. A. C., Colombatto, C., Awad, E., Boggio, P., Bos, B., Brady, W. J., … Crockett, M. J. 2021. “Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis” Nature Human Behaviour 5: 10741088.Google Scholar
Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. 2018. “The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 79: 200216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004Google Scholar
Everett, J. A. C., & Kahane, G. 2020. “Switching tracks? Towards a multidimensional model of utilitarian psychology” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24: 124134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, J. A. C., Pizarro, D. A., & Crockett, M. J. 2016. “Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgmentsJournal of Experimental Psychology: General 145: 772787. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000165Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1984. Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Antonenko, O., & John, O. P. 2012. “Liberating reason from the passions: Overriding intuitionist moral judgments through emotion reappraisalPsychological Science 23: 788795.Google Scholar
Feltz, A., & May, J. 2017. “The means/side-effect distinction in moral cognition: A meta-analysisCognition 166: 314327.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, C. 2003. “Is risk a harm?University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151: 9631001.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. 1992. Ethics: Problems and Principles. Harcourt: Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, W. J. 2006. “The intend/foresee distinction and the problem of ‘closeness’Philosophical Studies 128: 585617.Google Scholar
FitzPatrick, W. J. 2009. “Thomson’s turnabout on the trolleyAnalysis 69: 636–43.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1967. “The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effectOxford Review 5: 515. Reprinted in Foot, P., Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. 19–32. Oxford: Blackwell 1978. [Also Foot 1967/2002; 1967/2003]Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1967/2002a. “The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect” In Foot, P. (Ed.), Virtue and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. 1932. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Also Foot 1967; 1967/2003]Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1967/2003. “The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect” In Foot, P. (Ed.) Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Berkeley and Los Angeles.: University of California Press. [Also Foot 1967; 1967/2002a]Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1977. “Euthanasia,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 6: 85112. Reprinted in Foot, P., Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy 33–61. Oxford: Blackwell, 1978.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1978. Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1984. “Killing and letting die” In Garfield, J. (Ed.), Abortion: Moral and Legal Perspectives. 178185. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Reprinted in Foot, P., Moral Dilemmas and Other Topics in Moral Philosophy. 78–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. [Also Foot 1994]Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1985a. “Utilitarianism and the virtuesMind 94: 196209.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1985b. “Morality, action and outcome” In Honderich, T. (Ed.), Morality and Objectivity. 2338. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Reprinted in Foot, P., Moral Dilemmas and Other Topics in Moral Philosophy. 88–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1994. “Killing and letting die” In Steinbock, B. and Norcross, A. (Eds.), Killing and Letting Die, 2nd Edition. 280–89. New York: Fordham University Press. [Also Foot 1984]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, P. 2001. Natural Goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 2002a, Virtue and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 2002b. Moral Dilemmas and Other Topics in Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fried, B. H. 2012a. “What does matter? The case for killing the trolley problem (or letting it die)The Philosophical Quarterly 62: 125.Google Scholar
Fried, B. 2012b. “The limits of a nonconsequentialist approach to tortsLegal Theory 18: 231262.Google Scholar
Friesdorf, R., Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. 2015. Gender differences in responses to moral dilemmas: A process dissociation analysisPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41: 696713.Google Scholar
Frowe, H. 2015. Defensive Killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frowe, H. 2018. “Lesser-evil justifications for harming: Why we’re required to turn the trolleyThe Philosophical Quarterly 68: 460480.Google Scholar
Fruge, C. 2019. “Possible intentions and the doctrine of double effectEthics, Medicine and Public Health 8:1117.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. 2017. “Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-makingJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 113: 343376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086Google Scholar
Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. 2015. How foreign language shapes moral judgmentJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 59: 817.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. 2008. Reconciling Our Aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glenn, A. L., Raine, A., & Schug, R. A. 2009. “The neural correlates of moral decision-making in psychopathyMolecular Psychiatry 14: 56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gogoll, J.,& Müller, J. F. 2017. “Autonomous cars: In favor of a mandatory ethics settingScience and Engineering Ethics 23: 681700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, N. Forthcoming. “Thought experiments in ethics” In Copp, D., Rosati, C., and Rulli, T. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Normative Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gold, N., Colman, A. M., & Pulford, B. D. 2014. “Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problemsJudgment and Decision Making 9: 6576.Google Scholar
Goodall, N. 2016. “Away from trolley problems and toward risk managementApplied Artificial Intelligence 30: 810821.Google Scholar
Graham, P. A. 2017. “Thomson’s trolley problemJournal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 12: 168190.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. 2007. “The secret joke of Kant’s Soul” in Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Ed.), Moral Psychology Vol. 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development. 3579. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. 2013. Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. 2014. “Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro)science matters for ethicsEthics 124: 695726.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. 2017. “The rat-a-gorical imperative: Moral intuition and the limits of affective learningCognition 167: 6677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, J. D., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. 2009. “Pushing moral buttons: The interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment” Cognition 111: 364371.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D., Huang, K., & Bazerman, M. 2022. “Redirecting Rawlsian Reasoning Toward the Greater Good” In Vargas, M. & Doris, J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Moral Psychology. 246–261. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. 2008. “Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment” Cognition 107: 11441154.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. 2004. “The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgmentNeuron 44: 389400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027Google Scholar
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. 2001. “An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgmentScience 293: 21052108.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D., & Young, L. 2020. “The cognitive neuroscience of moral judgment and decision-making” in The Cognitive Neurosciences, Volume 6 (Ed. Gazzaniga, M.S.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gürçay, B., & Baron, J. 2017. “Challenges for the sequential two-system model of moral judgementThinking & Reasoning 23: 4980. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2016.1216011Google Scholar
Haidt, J. 2001. “The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgmentPsychological Review 108: 814834.Google Scholar
Hájek, A. 2019. “Interpretations of probability” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/probability-interpret/Google Scholar
Hannikainen, I. R., Machery, E., & Cushman, F. A. 2018. “Is utilitarian sacrifice becoming more morally permissible?Cognition 170: 95101.Google Scholar
Hanser, M. 1999. “Killing, letting die and preventing people from being savedUtilitas 11: 277295.Google Scholar
Hanser, M. 2019. “Understanding harm and its moral significanceEthical Theory and Moral Practice 22: 853870.Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. 2012. “A Panorama of the philosophy of risk” In Roeser, S., Hillebrand, R., & Peterson, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Risk Theory. 2754. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. 2013. The Ethics of Risk: Ethical Analysis in an Uncertain World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. 2020. “The immoral machineCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29: 7179.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1955. “Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utilityJournal of Political Economy 63: 309321.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1975. “Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’s theoryAmerican Political Science Review 69: 594606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. 2006. Moral Minds. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Hauser, M., Cushman, F., Young, L., Kang‐Xing Jin, R., & Mikhail, J. 2007. “A dissociation between moral judgments and justificationsMind & Language 22: 121.Google Scholar
Hayakawa, S., Tannenbaum, D., Costa, A., Corey, J. D., & Keysar, B. 2017. “Thinking more or feeling less? Explaining the foreign-language effect on moral judgmentPsychological Science 28: 13871397.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., … & Tracer, D. 2005. “‘Economic man’ in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societiesBehavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 795855.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. 2010. “The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 6183.Google Scholar
Himmelreich, J. 2018. “Never mind the trolley: The ethics of autonomous vehicles in mundane situationsScience and Engineering Ethics 21: 669684.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. H. 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Vol. 5. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hooker, B. 2002. Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, K., Greene, J. D., & Bazerman, M. 2019. “Veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater goodProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 2398923995.Google Scholar
Huang, K., Bernhard, R. M., Barak-Corren, N., Bazerman, M. H., & Greene, J. D. 2021. “Veil-of-ignorance reasoning mitigates self-serving bias in resource allocation during the COVID-19 crisisJudgment & Decision Making 16: 119.Google Scholar
Hübner, D. & White, L. 2018. “Crash algorithms for autonomous cars: How the trolley problem can move us beyond harm minimizationEthical Theory and Moral Practice 21: 685698.Google Scholar
Hume, D., Selby-Bigge, L. A., & Nidditch, P. H. 1751/1975. Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals 3rd Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hurd, H. 1996. “The deontology of negligence,” Boston University Law Review 76: 249271.Google Scholar
Hurka, T. 2016. “Trolleys and permissible harm” In Kamm, F. M. (Ed.), The Trolley Problem Mysteries. 135150. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hursthouse, R. 1999. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutcherson, C. A., Montaser-Kouhsari, L., Woodward, J., & Rangel, A. 2015. “Emotional and utilitarian appraisals of moral dilemmas are encoded in separate areas and integrated in ventromedial prefrontal cortexJournal of Neuroscience 35: 1259312605.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. 1991. “Decision-theoretic consequentialism and the nearest and dearest objectionEthics 101: 461482.Google Scholar
Jaeger, B., & van Vugt, M. 2021. “Psychological barriers to effective altruism: An evolutionary perspectiveCurrent Opinion in Psychology 44: 130134.Google Scholar
JafariNaimi, N. 2017. “Our bodies in the trolley’s path, or why self-driving cars must *Not* be programmed to killScience, Technology, & Human Values 43: 302323.Google Scholar
Kagan, S. 1989. The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, S. 2016. “Solving the trolley problem” In Kamm, F. M. (Ed.), The Trolley Problem Mysteries. 152165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahane, G. 2012. “On the wrong track: Process and content in moral psychologyMind and Language 25: 519545.Google Scholar
Kahane, G. 2013. “The armchair and the trolley: An argument for experimental ethicsPhilosophical Studies 162: 421445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s110980119775–5Google Scholar
Kahane, G. 2014. “Intuitive and counterintuitive morality” In D’Arms, J. and Jacobson, D. (Eds.), Moral Psychology and Human Agency: Philosophical Essays on the Science of Ethics. 939. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahane, G. 2015. “Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgmentSocial Neuroscience 10: 551560.Google Scholar
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. 2015. “‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater goodCognition 134: 193209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005Google Scholar
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. 2018. “Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychologyPsychological Review 125:131164. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000093Google Scholar
Kahane, G., & Shackel, N. 2010. “Methodological issues in the neuroscience of moral judgementMind & Language 25: 561582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14680017.2010.01401.xGoogle Scholar
Kahane, G., Wiech, K., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J., & Tracey, I. 2012. “The neural basis of intuitive and counterintuitive moral judgmentSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 7: 393402. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr005Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2003. “A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationalityAmerican Psychologist 58: 697720.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 1985. “Supererogation and obligationThe Journal of Philosophy 82: 118138.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 1987. “The insanity defense, innocent threats, and limited alternativesCriminal Justice 6: 6176.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 1989. “Harming some to save othersPhilosophical Studies 57: 227–60.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 1993. Morality, Mortality, Vol. 1: Death and Whom to Save from It. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. 1996. Morality, Mortality. Vol. 2: Rights, Duties and Status. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 2000. “The doctrine of triple effect and why a rational agent need not intend the means to his endProceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 74: 2139.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 2007. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 2009. “Neuroscience and moral reasoning: A note on recent researchPhilosophy & Public Affairs 37: 330345.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 2012. The Moral Target: Aiming at Right Conduct in War and Other Conflicts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 2013. Bioethical Prescriptions: To Create, End, Choose and Improve Lives. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 2013b. “The trolley problem” International Encyclopedia of Ethics. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.bbk.ac.uk/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee252.pub2Google Scholar
Kamm, F. 2016. The Trolley Problem Mysteries. Rakowski, E. (Ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. 2020a. “Use and abuse of the trolley problem: Self-driving cars, medical treatments, and the distribution of harm” In Liao, S. M. (Ed.), Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. 79108. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F.M. 2020b. “Parfit on the irrelevance of deontological distinctions” In Timmons, M. (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. 930. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. 2021. “Duties that become supererogatory or forbidden?” In McMahan, J. et al. (Eds.), Principles and Persons: The Legacy of Derek Parfit. 441462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1785/1994. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1785/1959. Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2005. The moral law: Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kauppinen, A. 2020. “Who should bear the risk when self-driving vehicles crash?Journal of Applied Philosophy 38: 640645. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12490Google Scholar
Keeling, G. 2019. “Why trolley problems matter for the ethics of automated vehiclesScience and Engineering Ethics 26: 293307.Google Scholar
Keeling, G., Evans, K., Thornton, S., Mecacci, G., & Santoni de Sio, F. 2019. “Four perspectives on what matters for the ethics of automated vehicles” In Meyer, G. & Beiker, S. (Eds.), Road Vehicle Automation. 4960. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kirkland, R. 2004. Taoism: The Enduring Tradition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2011. The Ethical Project. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, P. 2020. “A Kantian solution to the trolley problemOxford Studies in Normative Ethics 10: 204228.Google Scholar
Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J., & Newman, J. P. 2012. “Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathySocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 7: 708714.Google Scholar
Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. 2007. “Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgmentsNature 446: 908911. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05631Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L. 1969. “Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization” In Goslin, D.A (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. 347480. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Kolber, A. 2009. “The organ conscription trolley problemThe American Journal of Bioethics 9: 1314.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. 1996. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koven, N. S. 2011. “Specificity of meta-emotion effects on moral decision-makingEmotion 11: 12551261.Google Scholar
Kumar, R. 2015. “Risking and wrongingPhilosophy & Public Affairs 43: 2751.Google Scholar
Lafer-Sousa, R., & Conway, B. R. 2017. “#TheDress: Categorical perception of an ambiguous color imageJournal of Vision 17: 2525.Google Scholar
LeBeau, P. 2016. “Google’s self-driving car caused an accident, so what now?,” CNBC, www.cnbc.com/2016/02/29/googles-self-driving- car-caused-an-accident-so-what-now.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lenman, J., & Shemmer, Y. 2012. “Introduction” In Lenman, J., & Shemmer, Y. (Eds.). Constructivism in Practical Philosophy. 117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, S., & Wong, J. C. 2018. “Self-Driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian,” The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempeGoogle Scholar
Levine, E. E., Barasch, A., Rand, D., Berman, J. Z., & Small, D. A. 2018. “Signaling emotion and reason in cooperationJournal of Experimental Psychology: General 147: 702719. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000399Google Scholar
Li, Z., Xia, S., Wu, X., & Chen, Z. 2018. “Analytical thinking style leads to more utilitarian moral judgments: An exploration with a process-dissociation approachPersonality and Individual Differences 131: 180184.Google Scholar
Liao, S. M. 2016. “The closeness problem and the doctrine of double effect: A way forwardCriminal Law and Philosophy 10: 849863.Google Scholar
Lillehammer, H. 2004. “Moral error theoryProceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104: 95111.Google Scholar
Lin, P. 2015. “Why ethics matters for autonomous cars” In Maurer, M., Gerdes, J., Lenz, B., & Winner, H. (Eds.), Autonomous Driving: Technical, Legal and Social Aspects. 6985. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Loh, E. 2018. “Medicine and the rise of the robots: A qualitative review of recent advances of artificial intelligence in health” BMJ Leader 2. https://bmjleader.bmj.com/content/2/2/59Google Scholar
Luetge, C. 2017. “The German ethics code for automated and connected drivingPhilosophy & Technology 30 : 547558.Google Scholar
Lykkeskov, A., & Di Nucci, E. 2022. “COVID-19 and intergenerational justice: The case of Denmark” In Schweiger, G. (Ed.), Philosophical Perspectives on the Social Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic. 5163. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
MacAskill, W. 2015. Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and a Radical New Way to Make a Difference. London: Guardian Faber Publishing.Google Scholar
Machery, E. 2009. Doing without Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Machery, E. 2010. “Explaining why experimental behavior varies across cultures: A missing step in ‘The weirdest people in the world?’Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33: 101.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1985. After Virtue, 2nd Edition. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Martins, A., Faisca, L., Esteves, F., Muresan, A., & Reis, A. 2012. “A typical moral judgements following traumatic brain injuryJudgment and Decision Making 7: 478487.Google Scholar
McCann, H. 2010. “Di Nucci on the simple viewAnalysis 70: 5359.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. 1997. “Rights, explanation, and risksEthics 107: 205225.Google Scholar
McCormick, C., Rosenthal, C. R., Miller, T. D., & Maguire, E. A. 2016. “Hippocampal damage increases deontological responses during moral decision makingJournal of Neuroscience 36 : 1215712167.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. 1979, “Virtue and reasonThe Monist 62: 331350.Google Scholar
McKerlie, D. 1986. “Rights and riskCanadian Journal of Philosophy 16: 239251.Google Scholar
McMahan, J. 2005. “The basis of moral liability for defensive killingPhilosophical Issues 15: 386405.Google Scholar
McMahan, J. 2009. Killing in War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McMahan, J. 2014. “Self-defense against justified threateners” In Frowe, H. & Lang, G. (Eds.), How We Fight: Ethics in War. 104137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mendez, M. F., Anderson, E., & Shapira, J. S. 2005. “An investigation of moral judgement in frontotemporal dementiaCognitive and Behavioral Neurology 18: 193197.Google Scholar
Michelin, C., Tallandini, M., Pellizzoni, S., & Siegal, M. 2010. “Should more be saved? Diversity in utilitarian moral judgmentJournal of Cognition and Culture 10: 153169.Google Scholar
Mikhail, J. 2007. “Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the futureTrends in Cognitive Sciences 11: 143152.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S., & Crisp, R. (Eds.) (1998). Utilitarianism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, A. B., Lee, N. L., Clark, B. A., & Conway, A. R. 2011. “In defense of the personal/impersonal distinction in moral psychology research: Cross-cultural validation of the dual process model of moral judgmentJudgment and Decision Making 6: 186195.Google Scholar
Moretto, G., Làdavas, E., Mattioli, F., & Di Pellegrino, G. 2010. “A psychophysiological investigation of moral judgment after ventromedial prefrontal damageJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22: 18881899.Google Scholar
Moser, E. I., Kropff, E., & Moser, M. B. 2008. “Place cells, grid cells, and the brain’s spatial representation systemAnnual Review of Neuroscience 31: 6989.Google Scholar
Mounk, Y. 2020. “The extraordinary decisions facing Italian doctors” The Atlantic. March 11. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/who-gets-hospital-bed/607807/Google Scholar
Muda, R., Niszczota, P., Białek, M., & Conway, P. 2018. “Reading dilemmas in a foreign language reduces both deontological and utilitarian response tendenciesJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 44: 321326.Google Scholar
Nadelhoffer, T., & Feltz, A. 2008. “The actor–observer bias and moral intuitions: Adding fuel to Sinnott-Armstrong’s fireNeuroethics 1: 133144.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. K., & Rickless, S. C. 2014. “Three cheers for double effectPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research 89: 125158.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. K., & Rickless, S. C. 2015. “So close, yet so far: Why solutions to the closeness problem for the doctrine of double effect fall shortNoûs 49: 376409.Google Scholar
Nyholm, S., & Smids, J. 2016. “The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: An applied trolley problem?Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19: 12751289.Google Scholar
Nyholm, S. 2018a. “The ethics of crashes with self-driving cars: A roadmap, IPhilosophy Compass 13: e12507.Google Scholar
Nyholm, S. 2018b. “The ethics of crashes with self-driving cars, A Roadmap, IIPhilosophy Compass 13: e12506.Google Scholar
Nyholm, S. 2020. Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
Oberdiek, J. 2017. Imposing Risk: A Normative Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oftedal, G., Ravn, I. H., and Dahl, F. A. 2020. “Do we need empirical research on the use of trolley dilemmas in applied ethics? Reply to commentary by Heidi MatisonnJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 15: 300301.Google Scholar
O’Neill, P., & Petrinovich, L. 1998. “A preliminary cross-cultural study of moral intuitionsEvolution and Human Behavior 19: 349367.Google Scholar
Ord, T. 2020. The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. New York: Hachette Books.Google Scholar
Orlove, R. 2016. “Now Mercedes says its driverless cars won’t run over Pedestrians, That Would be Illegal” Jalopnik. https://jalopnik.com/now-mercedes-says-its-driverless-cars-wont-run-over-ped-1787890432Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 2011. On What Matters. Vol. 1 & 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 2017. On What Matters. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patil, I., & Silani, G. 2014. “Reduced empathic concern leads to utilitarian moral judgments in trait alexithymiaFrontiers in Psychology 5: 501.Google Scholar
Patil, I., Zucchelli, M. M., Kool, W., Campbell, S., Fornasier, F., Calò, M., … Cushman, F. 2021. “Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measuresJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 120: 443460. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000281Google Scholar
Paxton, J. M., Ungar, L., & Greene, J. D. 2012. “Reflection and reasoning in moral judgmentCognitive Science 36: 163177.Google Scholar
Perkins, A. M., Leonard, A. M., Weaver, K., Dalton, J. A., Mehta, M. A., Kumari, V., … & Ettinger, U. 2013. “A dose of ruthlessness: Interpersonal moral judgment is hardened by the anti-anxiety drug lorazepamJournal of Experimental Psychology: General 142: 612620.Google Scholar
Perry, M. 2007. “Risk, harm, interests, and rights” In Lewens, T. (Ed.), Risk: Philosophical Perspectives. 190209. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Petrinovich, L., & O’Neill, P. 1996. “Influence of wording and framing effects on moral intuitionsEthology and Sociobiology 17: 145171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(96)00041-6Google Scholar
Petrinovich, L., O’Neill, P., & Jorgensen, M. 1993. “An empirical study of moral intuitions: Toward an evolutionary ethicsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 467478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.467Google Scholar
Phelps, E. A. 2006. “Emotion and cognition: Insights from studies of the human amygdalaAnnual Review of Psychology 57: 2753.Google Scholar
Plunkett, D., & Greene, J. D. 2019. “Overlooked evidence and a misunderstanding of what trolley dilemmas do best: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018)Psychological Science 30: 13891391.Google Scholar
Prinz, J. 2007. The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Purves, D., Jenkins, R., & Strawser, B. J. 2015Autonomous machines, moral judgment, and acting for the right reasonsEthical Theory and Moral Practice 18: 851872.Google Scholar
Quinn, W. S. 1989a. “Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of doing and allowingPhilosophical Review 98: 287312.Google Scholar
Quinn, W. 1989b. “Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of double effectPhilosophy and Public Affairs 18: 334351.Google Scholar
Quinn, W. (1989a). “Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of doing and allowing” In Foot, P. (Ed.), Morality and Action. 149174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Railton, P. 1985. “Locke, stock, and peril: Natural property rights, pollution, and risk” In Gibson, M. (Ed.), To Breathe Freely. 89123. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. Reprinted in Railton, Peter. 2003. Facts, Values, and Norms: Essays toward a Morality of Consequence. 187–225. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rakowski, E. 1993. “Taking and saving livesColumbia Law Review 93: 10631156. Reprinted in Harris, J. (Ed.) 2001. Bioethics. 205–299. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rehman, S., & Dzionek-Kozłowska, J. 2020. “The Chinese and American students and the trolley problem: A cross-cultural studyJournal of Intercultural Communication 20: 3141.Google Scholar
Rehren, P., & Zisman, V. 2022. “Testing the intuitive retributivism dual process modelZeitschrift Für Psychologie 230:152163.Google Scholar
Reynolds, C. J., & Conway, P. 2018. “Not just bad actions: Affective concern for bad outcomes contributes to moral condemnation of harm in moral dilemmasEmotion 18: 10091023. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000413Google Scholar
Rhim, J., Lee, G. B., & Lee, J. H. 2020. “Human moral reasoning types in autonomous vehicle moral dilemma: A cross-cultural comparison of Korea and CanadaComputers in Human Behavior 102: 3956.Google Scholar
Rickless, S. C. 1997. “The doctrine of doing and allowingPhilosophical Review 106: 555575.Google Scholar
Rickless, S. C. 2011. “The moral status of enabling harmPacific Philosophical Quarterly 92: 6686.Google Scholar
Robotics Business Review. 2019. “Trolley dilemmas shouldn’t influence self-driving policies, experts argue” www.roboticsbusinessreview.com/unmanned/trolley-dilemmas-should-not-formulate-self-driving-policies/Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Alcázar, J., Bermejo-Luque, L., & Molina-Pérez, A. 2020. “Do automated vehicles face moral dilemmas? A plea for a political approach” Philosophy & Technology. doi: 10.1007/s13347-020-00432-5.Google Scholar
Rom, S. C., Weiss, A., & Conway, P. 2017. “Judging those who judge: Perceivers infer the roles of affect and cognition underpinning others’ moral dilemma responsesJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 69: 4458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.007Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Royzman, E. B., & Baron, J. 2002. “The preference for indirect harmSocial Justice Research 15: 165184.Google Scholar
Ryazanov, A. A., Knutzen, J., Rickless, S. C., Christenfeld, N. J.S., & Nelkin, D. K. 2018. “Intuitive probabilities and the limitation of moral imaginationCognitive Science 42: 3868.Google Scholar
Ryazanov, A. A., Wang, S. T., Rickless, S. C., McKenzie, C. R.M., & Nelkin, D. K. 2021. “Sensitivity to shifts in probability of harm and benefit in moral dilemmasCognition 209: 104548.Google Scholar
Sacco, D. F., Brown, M., Lustgraaf, C. J. N., & Hugenberg, K. 2017. “The adaptive utility of deontology: Deontological moral decision-making fosters perceptions of trust and likeabilityEvolutionary Psychological Science 3: 125132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806–016-0080-6Google Scholar
Santoni de Sio, F. 2017. “Killing by autonomous vehicles and the legal doctrine of necessityEthical Theory and Moral Practice 20: 411429.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 2008. Moral Dimensions. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shenhav, A., & Greene, J. D. 2010. “Moral judgments recruit domain-general valuation mechanisms to integrate representations of probability and magnitudeNeuron 67: 667677.Google Scholar
Shenhav, A., & Greene, J. D. 2014. “Integrative moral judgment: Dissociating the roles of the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortexJournal of Neuroscience 34: 47414749.Google Scholar
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. 2012. “Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in GodJournal of Experimental Psychology: General 141: 423.Google Scholar
Schoettle, B., & Sivak, M. 2015. A Preliminary Analysis of Real‐world Crashes Involving Self‐driving Vehicles. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.Google Scholar
Sheskin, M., Chevallier, C., Adachi, K., Berniūnas, R., Castelain, T., Hulín, M., … & Baumard, N. 2018. “The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few: The limits of individual sacrifice across diverse culturesJournal of Cognition and Culture 18: 205223.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. 1997. “The ‘big three’ of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the ‘big three’ explanations of suffering” in Brandt, A. M., & Rozin, P. (Eds.), Morality and Health. 119169. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1972. “Famine, affluence, and moralityPhilosophy & Public Affairs 1: 229243.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1981. The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 2005. “Ethics and intuitionsThe Journal of Ethics 9: 331352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892–005-3508-yGoogle Scholar
Singer, P. 2010. The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 2015. The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas about Living Ethically. Melbourne: Text Publishing.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. 1973. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, K., & Hatemi, P. K. 2020. “Are moral intuitions heritable?Human Nature 31: 406420.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Marczak, M., Misiak, M., & Białek, M. 2020. “Trolley dilemma in Papua. Yali horticulturalists refuse to pull the leverPsychonomic Bulletin & Review 27: 398403.Google Scholar
Spranca, M., Minsk, E., & Baron, J. 1991. “Omission and commission in judgment and choiceJournal of Experimental Social Psychology 27: 76105.Google Scholar
Stevens, M. 2017. “The greater good” Mind Field. Season 2. Episode 1 (December 6, 2017). Retrieved May 20, 2021.Google Scholar
Street, S. 2012. “Coming to terms with contingency: Humean constructivism about practical reason” In Lenman, J. & Shemmer, Y. (Eds.), Constructivism in Practical Philosophy. 40–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Street, S. 2010. “What is constructivism in ethics and metaethics?Philosophy Compass 5: 363384.Google Scholar
Street, S. 2008. “Constructivism about reasons.” Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 3: 207245.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 2004. The Economics of Rights, Co-operation and Welfare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Suter, R. S., & Hertwig, R. 2011. “Time and moral judgmentCognition 119: 454458.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. 2018. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sütfeld, L.R. et al. 2017. “Using virtual reality to assess ethical decisions in road traffic scenarios: Applicability of value-of-life-based models and influences of time pressureFrontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 11: 122.Google Scholar
Swann, W. B. Jr, Gómez, Á., Dovidio, J. F., Hart, S., & Jetten, J. 2010. “Dying and killing for one’s group: Identity fusion moderates responses to intergroup versions of the trolley problemPsychological Science 21: 11761183.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. 2003. Virtue Ethics: A Pluralistic View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tadros, V. 2015. “Wrongful intentions without closenessPhilosophy & Public Affairs 43: 5274.Google Scholar
Tassy, S., Oullier, O., Mancini, J., & Wicker, B. 2013. “Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmasFrontiers in Psychology 4: 250.Google Scholar
Taurek, J. 1977. “Should the numbers count?Philosophy & Public Affairs 6: 293316.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. 2016. “Self-driving Mercedes-Benzes will prioritize occupant safety over pedestrians”, Car and Driver. www.caranddriver.com/news/a15344706/self-driving-mercedes-will-prioritize-occupant-safety-over-pedestrians/Google Scholar
Technology Review. 2018. “Should a self-driving car kill the baby or the grandma? Depends on where you’re from” www.technologyreview.com/2018/10/24/139313/a-global-ethics-study-aims-to-help-ai-solve-the-self-driving-trolley-problem/Google Scholar
The Tesla Team. 2016. “A tragic loss” Tesla Blog, www.tesla.com/ blog/tragic-lossGoogle Scholar
Terbeck, S., Kahane, G., McTavish, S., Savulescu, J., Levy, N., Hewstone, M., & Cowen, P. J. 2013. “beta Adrenergic blockade reduces utilitarian judgementBiological Psychology 92: 323328.Google Scholar
Thomas, B. C., Croft, K. E., & Tranel, D. 2011. “Harming kin to save strangers: Further evidence for abnormally utilitarian moral judgments after ventromedial prefrontal damageJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23: 21862196.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1971. “A defense of abortionPhilosophy and Public Affairs 1: 4766.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1976. “Killing, letting die, and the trolley problemThe Monist 59: 204217.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1977. Acts and Other Events. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1985. “The trolley problemYale Law Journal 94: 13951415. Reprinted in Thomson, J. J.. Rights, Restitution and Risk. Parent, W. (Ed.) 94–116. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1986a. “Self-defense and rights,” in Thomson 1986f, 33–48.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1986b. “Some ruminations on rights,” in Thomson 1986f, 49–65.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1986c. “Rights and compensation,” in Thomson 1986f, 66–77.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1986d. “Some questions about government regulation of behavior,” in Thomson 1986f, 154–172.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1986e. “The trolley problem,” in Thomson 1986f, 94–116.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1986f. Rights, Restitution and Risk. Parent, W. (Ed.) Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1990. The Realm of Rights. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 1991. “Self defensePhilosophy & Public Affairs 20: 283310.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 2008. “Turning the trolleyPhilosophy & Public Affairs 36: 359374.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. 2016. “Kamm on the trolley problems” In Kamm, F. M. (Ed.), The Trolley Problem Mysteries. 113134. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tinghög, G., Andersson, D., Bonn, C., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Koppel, L., & Västfjäll, D. 2016. “Intuition and moral decision-making – the effect of time pressure and cognitive load on moral judgment and altruistic behaviorPloS ONE 11: e0164012.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C. 1948. “Cognitive maps in rats and menPsychological Review 55: 189208.Google Scholar
Trémolière, B., De Neys, W., & Bonnefon, J. F. 2012. “Mortality salience and morality: Thinking about death makes people less utilitarianCognition 124: 379384.Google Scholar
Trémolière, B., & Bonnefon, J.-F. 2014. “Efficient kill–save ratios ease up the cognitive demands on counterintuitive moral utilitarianismPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40: 923930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214530436Google Scholar
Uhlmann, E. L., Zhu, L. (Lei), & Tannenbaum, D. 2013. “When it takes a bad person to do the right thingCognition 126: 326334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.005Google Scholar
Uman, L. S. 2011. “Systematic reviews and meta-analysesJournal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 20: 57.Google Scholar
Unger, P. 1995. Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Zyl, L. 2018. Virtue Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Zyl, L. 2020. “Virtuous and right action: A relaxed view” In Halbig, C., & Timmermann, F. U. (Eds.), Handbuch Tugend und Tugendethik. 4963. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Venture Beat. 2018. “MIT study explores the ‘Trolley Problem’ and self-driving cars” https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/24/mit-study-explores-the-trolley-problem-and-self-driving-cars/Google Scholar
Verfaellie, M., Hunsberger, R., & Keane, M. M. 2021. “Episodic processes in moral decisions: Evidence from medial temporal lobe amnesiaHippocampus 31 : 569579.Google Scholar
Voorhoeve, A. 2009. Conversations on Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, D., & Conger, K. 2018. “Uber’s self-driving cars are set to return in a downsized test” New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/technology/uber-self-driving-cars.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wallach, W., & Allen, C. 2009. Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wallisch, P. 2017. “Illumination assumptions account for individual differences in the perceptual interpretation of a profoundly ambiguous stimulus in the color domain: ‘he dress’Journal of Vision 17: 5.Google Scholar
Washington Post. 2016. “Google’s chief of self-driving cars downplays ‘The Trolley Problem’” www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/12/01/googles-leader-on-self-driving-cars-downplays-the-trolley-problem/Google Scholar
Wiech, K., Kahane, G., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J., & Tracey, I. 2013. “Cold or calculating? Reduced activity in the subgenual cingulate cortex reflects decreased emotional aversion to harming in counterintuitive utilitarian judgmentCognition 126: 364372.Google Scholar
Williams, B. 1993. “Moral incapacityProceedings of the Aristotelian Society 93: 5970.Google Scholar
Winking, J., & Koster, J. 2021. “Small-scale utilitarianism: High acceptance of utilitarian solutions to trolley problems among a horticultural population in NicaraguaPLos ONE, 16: e0249345.Google Scholar
Winskel, H., & Bhatt, D. 2020”. The role of culture and language in moral decision-making” Culture and Brain 8: 207225.Google Scholar
Wolkenstein, A. 2018. “What has the trolley dilemma ever done for us (and what will it do in the future)? On some recent debates about the ethics of self-driving carsEthics and Information Technology 20: 163-173.Google Scholar
Wood, A. 2011. “Treating humanity as an end in itself” In Parfit, D. (Ed.), On What Matters, Vol. 2. 5882. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199572816.003.0003Google Scholar
Woodcock, S. 2017. “When will a consequentialist push you in front of a trolley?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95: 299316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2016.1212909Google Scholar
Woollard, F. 2015. Doing and Allowing Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woollard, F. 2017. “Double effect, doing and allowing, and the relaxed nonconsequentialistPhilosophical Explorations 20: 142158.Google Scholar
Wong, D. B. 2009. Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xiang, X. 2014. Would the Buddha Push the Man Off the Footbridge? Systematic Variations in the Moral Judgment and Punishment Tendencies of Han Chinese, Tibetans and Americans (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University).Google Scholar
Yamamoto, S. & Yuki, M. 2019. “What causes cross-cultural difference in reactions to the trolley problem? A cross-cultural study on the roles of relational mobility and reputation expectationResearch in Social Psychology 35: 6171.Google Scholar