Abstract

The author of the lectures in this book responds to the commentaries given. Firstly, the response discusses the view presented in the first comment of what the Trolley Problem is, its understanding of and objections to the Principle of Permissible Harm, its analysis of Foot’s views, and its claims about the relative role of cases and theory in explaining a moral issue. Intricacies not brought up in Lecture II are considered here and variations on the Principle of Permissible Harm, including the Principle of Productive Purity, are described. There follows a reaction to the second comment’s stated views on the relevance of the Principle of Permissible Harm to conduct in war and its views about the ability of the principle to explain intuitive responses to the Trolley Problem. The third comment’s presented views on resolving moral disagreement and the importance of providing theories that justify intuitive judgments are considered as well.