THE TROUBLE WITH TROLLEYOLOGY AND FATISM
The Trouble with Trolleyology and Fatism
A weird week this week.
What do YOU think about this new trolleyology dilemma?
I joined a meeting with some budding philosophers to tell them something about my research relating to women phiilosophers, from ancient times to the present day. (Eighteen Amazing Women Philosophers)
It should have been fun. I planned a section on the growth of feminism through its famous "three waves" and, for a lively group discussion, I picked Philippa Foot's "Trolley Problem" where you may choose to divert a runaway trolley from its track towards one person, to save five vulnerable people on the other track.
There have been a few variants on Philippa Foot's work to look at other moral aspects presented by the problem. This includes the famous variant, The Fat Man.
The Fat Man version supposes that, instead of diverting the trolley with a lever, you push a fat man in front of it to stop it. Many people are willing to pull the lever to divert the trolley onto the other track, but they wouldn't directly kill the fat man by pushing him onto the track.
The issue with the fat man seemed to be a sticking point with the group, who were familiar with the variant. They had already read my book and discussed it, but wanted to pursue it further.
The first thing I was told was I should "lose the fat man." One member of the group was particularly angry that I should fat-shame this anonymous and representational overweight person.
Phew! What options do I have?
The Fat Man scenario was developed by from Philippa Foot's original version by other philosophers during a time when "fat" was used as an adjective.
Now it seems I am required to change "fat" to maybe, "large" in my book. Really?.
This seems patronising to say the least, as it denies the historical context of the dilemma, and the writing of Philippa Foot and other philosophers, such as Judith Jarvis Thomson, who helped developed the several variants of the problem including The Fat Man.
But, to change the established and accepted content of this text is not good academic practice, nor is it honest.
Alternatively, I suppose I could add that useful little word "sic" after the word "fat." But, for heaven's sake, aren't we all adults, and old enough to understand the issue?
At a time when gay people are reclaiming the word "queer" and black people absorb the N-word into their discourse, thereby diminishing its power, how pathetic to have to face hositility over one descriptive word used in its correct historical context.
It isn't my place to change it.
Besides, as a far-from-lightweight but reasonably presentable woman, I think I must reclaim the word "fat" into my life.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
What do YOU think about this new trolleyology dilemma?
I joined a meeting with some budding philosophers to tell them something about my research relating to women phiilosophers, from ancient times to the present day. (Eighteen Amazing Women Philosophers)
It should have been fun. I planned a section on the growth of feminism through its famous "three waves" and, for a lively group discussion, I picked Philippa Foot's "Trolley Problem" where you may choose to divert a runaway trolley from its track towards one person, to save five vulnerable people on the other track.
There have been a few variants on Philippa Foot's work to look at other moral aspects presented by the problem. This includes the famous variant, The Fat Man.
The Fat Man version supposes that, instead of diverting the trolley with a lever, you push a fat man in front of it to stop it. Many people are willing to pull the lever to divert the trolley onto the other track, but they wouldn't directly kill the fat man by pushing him onto the track.
The issue with the fat man seemed to be a sticking point with the group, who were familiar with the variant. They had already read my book and discussed it, but wanted to pursue it further.
The first thing I was told was I should "lose the fat man." One member of the group was particularly angry that I should fat-shame this anonymous and representational overweight person.
Phew! What options do I have?
The Fat Man scenario was developed by from Philippa Foot's original version by other philosophers during a time when "fat" was used as an adjective.
Now it seems I am required to change "fat" to maybe, "large" in my book. Really?.
This seems patronising to say the least, as it denies the historical context of the dilemma, and the writing of Philippa Foot and other philosophers, such as Judith Jarvis Thomson, who helped developed the several variants of the problem including The Fat Man.
But, to change the established and accepted content of this text is not good academic practice, nor is it honest.
Alternatively, I suppose I could add that useful little word "sic" after the word "fat." But, for heaven's sake, aren't we all adults, and old enough to understand the issue?
At a time when gay people are reclaiming the word "queer" and black people absorb the N-word into their discourse, thereby diminishing its power, how pathetic to have to face hositility over one descriptive word used in its correct historical context.
It isn't my place to change it.
Besides, as a far-from-lightweight but reasonably presentable woman, I think I must reclaim the word "fat" into my life.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Comments