Week 12 — Duty, Character, and the Trolley: Testing the Theories

Assignment 11 of the term — correct a post about Kant's formulas with their translator named, run a maxim through the universal-law test, key an argument for validity, state Kantian deontology and virtue ethics at their strongest with their objections, compare three theories on the runaway trolley, and explain the trolley problem to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into exact, well-reasoned work. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned duty and maxims, hypothetical and categorical imperatives, Kant's formulas of universal law and of humanity, the rigidity objection, Aristotle's virtue ethics with eudaimonia, the mean, and habituation, and the runaway trolley. In Week 2 you learned standard form, validity, and the categorical syllogism, and in Week 11 you met utilitarianism. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Philosophy Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use this week's pinned sources, Dataset D (the course's table of ethical theories), Dataset J, the theory-matching set (illustrative), and Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). Datasets B and J are written for teaching and are not claims the course endorses; the course keys Dataset B's arguments for validity only, never for soundness, because the premises are open questions. The everyday cases below were written for this assignment; they are illustrative and describe no real person or place.

Part A — get Kant's sources right, then test his theory. A post on a study-group forum reads: "Kant's golden rule says you may never use another person as a means, and Kant wrote it in English as "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law."" Do four things:

• Correct the post. Say what the formula of universal law asks and how it differs from the golden rule; quote the formula of humanity exactly as the course's translation prints it and say what "never as means only" forbids and what it allows; and say whose English words the two quoted formulas are.
• Run the test. Write a maxim of your own for an everyday case (not the lying-to-borrow case from Dataset J), and run it through the 3-step universal-law test: state the maxim, imagine everyone acting on it, and ask whether you could still will it.
• State Kantian deontology at its strongest. State the theory as its best defenders would, then give the rigidity objection and a reply from the Kantian side.
• Key argument 9. Write Dataset B's argument 9 in standard form ("Every person deserves respect. Every prisoner is a person. So every prisoner deserves respect."), name its form, key it for validity with a one-sentence reason from the definition of validity, and say why the course does not key it as sound.

Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals dates from 1785, and Bentham's An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation was first published in 1789. How many years separate them?

Part B — weigh virtue ethics, then compare three theories on the trolley. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. Philippa Foot devised the runaway tram case in 1967, and Judith Jarvis Thomson named it the trolley problem in 1976. How many years separate them?

Then do three things:

• State virtue ethics at its strongest. Define eudaimonia, explain the mean with courage between cowardice and rashness, say why the mean is not a halfway point, say how a virtue is developed, and give the action-guidance objection and a reply from the virtue ethics side.
• Credit and run the trolley. Say who devised the runaway tram case and who named it the trolley problem, then run utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics on Foot's driver case and on the footbridge variation (only pushing a stranger wearing a heavy backpack onto the track stops the trolley), stating each theory's reasoning at its strongest.
• Say where they part. End with one plain sentence naming exactly where the three theories agree and where they part, without naming one of them correct.

Explain it to a non-expert

A teammate who has never taken philosophy says, "The trolley problem has an easy answer: five is more than one, so you push. End of story." Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that explains what the trolley problem tests, why someone might treat the footbridge differently from the switch even though the count is the same, and one honest limit of what you can claim. Explain any term your teammate might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a neighbor who asks whether "If you want a good harvest, water your garden" is a moral rule. Model answer: "That sentence is advice with a condition attached: it only tells you what to do if you want a good harvest. Philosophers call that a hypothetical imperative. A moral rule such as 'Do not lie' is meant to hold whether or not you want anything in particular, which is what Kant called categorical. One limit: philosophers still argue about whether any rule really binds everyone that way, so this is a distinction, not a verdict."

Use that pattern for your message to your teammate, with your own explanation of the trolley problem.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which change made your sourcing or your reconstruction more exact, and which definition or pinned quotation showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your statement of one of the theories stronger, and what had you left out at first?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your teammate before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Reply in your own words. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one correction, reconstruction, or statement of a theory, even if your first attempt was strong, and then reflect using option (a) or (b).
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write your corrections, reconstructions, or message for you. If it calls Kant's test the golden rule, says Kant forbids ever using anyone as a means, quotes Kant in a wording that is not Abbott's, reads the mean as a halfway point, credits the runaway tram case to Thomson, or says which theory is right, check that against Chapter 12 before you use it.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory philosophy course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: duty and maxims; hypothetical and categorical imperatives; Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and its formulas of universal law and of humanity, quoted only in Thomas Kingsmill Abbott's translation; the rigidity objection; Aristotle's virtue ethics, with eudaimonia, the mean, habituation, and the action-guidance objection; and the runaway tram case Philippa Foot devised (1967), which Judith Jarvis Thomson named the trolley problem (1976). Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a source; never call a Dataset B argument sound or unsound; and never announce a verdict on which ethical theory is right or what to do in the trolley case.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: I correct a forum post that says "Kant's golden rule says you may never use another person as a means, and Kant wrote it in English as \"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.\"" I say how the formula of universal law differs from the golden rule, quote the formula of humanity exactly, say what "never as means only" forbids and allows, and say whose English words the formulas are. I run a maxim of my own through the 3-step universal-law test. I state Kantian deontology at its strongest with the rigidity objection and a Kantian reply. I key Dataset B's argument 9 (illustrative): "Every person deserves respect. Every prisoner is a person. So every prisoner deserves respect." I name its form, judge its validity with a reason, and say why it is not keyed as sound. Part B: I state virtue ethics at its strongest with eudaimonia, the mean, habituation, and the action-guidance objection with a reply. I credit the trolley case to Foot and its name to Thomson, run utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics on Foot's driver case and the footbridge variation, and end with one plain sentence naming where they agree and part.
PROBLEM P1: Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals dates from 1785, and Bentham's An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation was first published in 1789. How many years separate them?
PROBLEM P2: Philippa Foot devised the runaway tram case in 1967, and Judith Jarvis Thomson named it the trolley problem in 1976. How many years separate them?
For P1 I must also supply the forum-post correction, the universal-law test on my own maxim, Kantian deontology with the rigidity objection and reply, and argument 9 keyed. For P2 I must also supply virtue ethics with its objection and reply, the credited trolley case, the three theories on the two cases, and the plain sentence; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a teammate who thinks the trolley problem has one easy keyed reply. After revising, I reflect using option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Sourcing and attribution (P1): 20 if the correction says the formula of universal law asks whether a maxim could hold for everyone rather than what I would want, quotes the formula of humanity word for word as the course prints it, says "never as means only" forbids using a person merely as a means but allows accepting help, says both English formulas are Thomas Kingsmill Abbott's translation and not Kant's own words, and works the P1 year gap; 10 if at least three but not all of those five parts are accurate; 0 if fewer. Kantian reconstruction and evaluation (P1): 25 if my own maxim is run through all 3 steps of the universal-law test with a reasoned result, Kantian deontology is stated at its strongest with the rigidity objection and a Kantian reply, and argument 9 is in standard form, named as a categorical syllogism, judged valid with a reason, and not keyed as sound; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or the theory is stated in a weakened form; 0 if no accurate reconstruction or evaluation. Virtue ethics and the trolley comparison (P2): 25 if virtue ethics is stated at its strongest with eudaimonia, the mean (courage between cowardice and rashness, not a halfway point), habituation, and the action-guidance objection with a reply; the case is credited to Foot and its name to Thomson; all three theories are run on the driver case and the footbridge variation at their strongest; the plain sentence names where they agree and part without naming one correct; and the P2 year gap is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or a theory is stated in a weakened form; 0 if no accurate evaluation or comparison. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message is in everyday words, says what the trolley problem tests, explains why the footbridge might be treated differently though the count is the same, and names a limit; 8 if it can be followed but omits one of those points or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to check it against the definitions and the pinned sources. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both problems with the forum-post correction, the universal-law test, Kantian deontology with its objection and reply, argument 9 keyed, virtue ethics with its objection and reply, the credited trolley case with the three theories, the plain sentence, and the teammate message AND revised at least one part AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my correction, my reconstruction, my comparison, and my message]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work: the forum-post correction with the first year gap, the universal-law test on your own maxim, Kantian deontology with its objection and reply, and argument 9 keyed; virtue ethics with its objection and reply, the credited trolley case with the three theories on both cases, and the plain sentence with the second year gap; your message to your teammate; and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 12 skills — correcting a post about Kant's formulas and quoting them with their translator, running a maxim through the universal-law test, stating Kantian deontology and virtue ethics at their strongest with their objections and replies, putting an argument in standard form and judging its validity without keying soundness, crediting the runaway tram to Foot and its name to Thomson, comparing three theories on one case without naming one correct, and explaining the trolley problem to someone new to philosophy — for comparable time and effort, about 75 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, Part B, the message to your teammate, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for the correction, check both formulas word for word against Chapter 12 and confirm that you named Abbott as the translator; for the universal-law test, confirm that you wrote all 3 steps for your own maxim; for argument 9, check the form's name against Week 2's list; for each theory, ask whether its best defender would sign your statement of it; for the trolley, confirm that Foot devised the case and Thomson named it; and check that your teammate message explains why the count might not settle the case. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition or pinned quotation that prompted it, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The correction, reconstruction, comparison, message, revision, and reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com