Week 12 Philosophy Workshop: The Quarry Cart and the Walkway

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned Kant's duty and maxims, his formulas of universal law and of humanity in Abbott's translation, Aristotle's virtue ethics with eudaimonia and the mean, and the runaway trolley, which Philippa Foot devised and Judith Jarvis Thomson named. In this workshop you take one illustrative packet from a hillside quarry where a loaded ore cart has broken loose. You reconstruct four short arguments and key each for validity. Then you test a variation of the trolley, the walkway, and ask whether pushing a worker into the cart's path differs from throwing a switch when the count is the same. You write a short dialogue between a utilitarian and a Kantian about the walkway, each in their strongest form. Last, you check a chatbot's version of the same work and correct its slips by hand, starting with whose English words Kant's formulas really are.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Which of the quarry's four arguments are valid, which one runs a conditional backward, does pushing the walkway worker differ from throwing the switch when the count is the same, and where exactly do a utilitarian and a Kantian part over the walkway?

Workshop data: Quarry rail packet: four illustrative arguments and two thought-experiment variations of the runaway trolley

Source: An illustrative packet of four short arguments and two thought-experiment variations written for this course's workshop; it describes no real quarry or person, and its premises are written for teaching, not claims the course endorses.

• Rows: 4 arguments (A1 to A4) and 2 thought-experiment variations; the reconstruction table has 4 rows and the walkway table has 4
• Arguments: A1 the switch that saves the most lives; A2 the worker used merely as a means; A3 the risky push; A4 the person treated as a tool
• Thought-experiment variations: the spur variation, labelled as a variation of Philippa Foot's runaway tram case; and the walkway variation, labelled as a variation on the shape of the footbridge
• Workers in the variations: 3 workers on the main rail and 1 worker on the spur or the walkway

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A free word processor or note-taking app for arguments in standard form and short dialogues, with the pinned public-domain texts on Project Gutenberg and the Internet Classics Archive open beside it; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose reconstructions, quotations, and attributions the student checks word for word against the pinned text and record before trusting them
• A free word processor or note-taking app
• One approved chatbot

Ways of working

• reconstruct-the-argument
• test-the-thought-experiment
• write-the-dialogue

Procedure

1. Read the quarry rail packet in Part 2 twice. In your notes, copy each of A1 to A4 into standard form: number the premises P1 and P2, and write the conclusion last as C, introduced by So. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Four reconstructions, each with numbered premises and one conclusion line that begins with So.
2. In the first table, name the form of each argument and write valid or invalid with a one-sentence reason that uses the definition of validity. Then name the premise a defender of another theory would reject, without calling any argument sound or unsound. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Every row of the first table has a form, a key, a reason, and a rejected premise; no row says sound or unsound.
3. Count the arguments in the second table: how many are valid and how many are invalid. Show the subtraction from the 4 arguments in the packet, and show how many fewer workers die if the cart is sent to the spur. Check: A count of valid and invalid arguments and a count of workers, each with the subtraction shown.
4. Work the walkway variation in the third table: give the utilitarian reading and the Kantian reading of the walkway, say whether pushing pulls your intuition differently from throwing the switch, and say which of this week's formulas the difference turns on. Check: Each row is filled in, and the walkway is labelled as a variation on the shape of the footbridge.
5. Write a short dialogue of four to six lines between a utilitarian and a Kantian about whether pushing the walkway worker is wrong. Give each speaker their strongest point, have each answer the other, connect the walkway to A2 or A4, and end with one plain sentence naming where they disagree. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Each speaker answers the other, neither is a weakened version, and a closing sentence names the disagreement.
6. Paste the prompt from Part 6 into one approved chatbot after your completed work, read its reply, and write the critique report. Or, on the equivalent route, mark up the printed flawed analysis instead. Tool: One approved chatbot. Check: A report that quotes at least two slips and corrects each by hand against the packet and Chapter 12.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if you cannot open a word processor or a note-taking app.

Copy the three tables by hand onto paper or into any text file, read the packet from this page, write the four reconstructions, the counts, the walkway table, and the dialogue by hand, and complete every analysis question and the critique step in the same order. Submit a photo or scan of the paper, or the text file, for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Key each argument by its form before you think about its premises, so a validity judgment never rests on whether a conclusion sounds right.

Student scaffold table 1

Argument	Form	Valid or invalid	Reason	Premise a defender of another theory rejects
A1 (the switch that saves the most lives)
A2 (the worker used merely as a means)
A3 (the risky push)
A4 (the person treated as a tool)

Count the keys and the workers so every number you report traces back to the packet.

Student scaffold table 2

Count	Number	How you got it
Arguments in the packet	4	Given in the packet
Valid arguments
Invalid arguments
Fewer deaths if the cart goes to the spur

Run the variation one step at a time, so your answer about the walkway is argued rather than asserted.

Student scaffold table 3

Step	What you find
The utilitarian reading of the walkway
The Kantian reading of the walkway
Does pushing pull your intuition differently from the switch, and why?
Which of this week's formulas the difference turns on

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. How many of the packet's 4 arguments are valid, and how many invalid? Show the subtraction, name the form of each valid one, and show how many fewer workers die if the cart goes to the spur.
2. Why is A3 invalid even if both of its premises are true? Explain with a same-shape argument of your own whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false, and one plain sentence about courage and rashness.
3. Using your walkway table, explain whether pushing the worker differs from throwing the switch when the count is the same, and why. Credit the original case to Philippa Foot, and quote a formula of Kant's only with its translator.
4. In your dialogue, what is the strongest point each speaker makes, and where exactly do they disagree? Connect the walkway to A2 or A4 and to the formula of humanity. End with one plain sentence.
5. What can a validity check not tell you about A1 or A4, and what can a made-up quarry case not show about what a person of good character would do in a real emergency?
6. Choose one reflection: (a) which argument in the packet did you first key the wrong way, and what in this week's definitions changed your mind? or (b) which speaker in your dialogue did you start out agreeing with, and did your view survive writing the other side at its strongest?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've completed my reconstruction table, my count, my walkway table, and my short dialogue above. Here is an illustrative workshop packet from my philosophy course. Quarry rail packet (illustrative): at a hillside quarry, a loaded ore cart breaks loose on a rail line and rolls toward 3 workers who cannot get clear. A1: If an act saves the most lives, it is right. Switching the cart onto the spur saves the most lives. So switching the cart onto the spur is right. A2: If pushing the worker on the walkway uses that worker merely as a means, then pushing is wrong. Pushing is not wrong. So pushing does not use that worker merely as a means. A3: If an act is courageous, it is risky. Pushing the worker is risky. So pushing the worker is courageous. A4: Every act that treats a person merely as a tool is wrong. Pushing the worker treats a person merely as a tool. So pushing the worker is wrong. The spur variation (a variation of Philippa Foot's runaway tram case, written for this workshop): a maintenance worker can throw a switch that sends the cart onto a spur where 1 worker is standing. The walkway variation (a variation on the shape of the footbridge, written for this workshop): the switch is jammed, and the only way to stop the cart is to push a worker standing on a walkway above the rail into its path. Please do seven things. First, put each of A1 to A4 in standard form, and say whether each is valid and whether it is sound. Second, give me Kant's exact words for the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity. Third, tell me who first came up with the runaway trolley case and when, and when Kant's Groundwork appeared. Fourth, explain what Kant's formula of humanity forbids and what Aristotle means by the mean. Fifth, say whether ethics of character was ever explored outside Europe. Sixth, Kant's ethics reminds me of 'I think, therefore I am'; tell me which book that line comes from. Seventh, tell me whether the maintenance worker should throw the switch and whether pushing the walkway worker is wrong, and end with a balanced summary.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call A3 valid, reading 'pushing is risky, so it is courageous' as if it were modus ponens.
• Chatbots often say A1 is sound, or that it proves switching is right, without asking whether its first premise is true.
• Chatbots often present an English version of Kant's formulas as Kant's own words, with no translator named.
• Asked for Kant's exact words, chatbots often give a smoother modern wording that appears in no pinned text, or add a quotation from Aristotle about the mean.
• Chatbots often say Judith Jarvis Thomson invented the trolley case because the name 'trolley problem' is hers.
• Chatbots sometimes date Foot's case to 1976 or the 1980s, or give the Groundwork a date other than 1785.
• Chatbots often say Kant forbids ever using anyone as a means, or that Aristotle's mean is the exact midpoint between two vices.
• Chatbots sometimes say ethics of character began and ended with Aristotle, or treat thinkers outside Europe as religious asides rather than philosophers.
• Asked where 'I think, therefore I am' comes from, chatbots usually name the Meditations, often with the year 1641.
• Asked whether the worker should throw the switch or whether pushing is wrong, chatbots often announce one answer as settled.
• Chatbots often end a 'balanced' summary by saying the utilitarian count is simply the rational answer, or that Kant is too rigid to take seriously.

Write 3-5 sentences naming what the chatbot got right and at least two places where it slipped into one of the failures above, quoting its words and correcting each by hand against the packet and Chapter 12.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 6 (explain and apply the major ethical theories — utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue ethics, and social contract theory — and the challenges of relativism and egoism, to moral cases) and Objective 2 (identify arguments, put them in standard form, judge whether they are valid, sound, or inductively strong, and test claims with counterexamples and thought experiments), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis of the quarry rail packet, printed here in full: "A1, A2, A3, and A4 are all valid, and A3 is modus ponens, which proves pushing is courageous. A1 is sound, so switching is right. Judith Jarvis Thomson invented the runaway trolley in 1976, and Kant's Groundwork came out in 1800. Kant wrote in English, 'Never use anyone for anything.' Aristotle said in his own words that the mean is the exact middle, quoted here in full. Kant forbids ever using another person as a means, so even buying from a cashier is wrong. Ethics of character is a European invention. Kant's ethics comes from the Meditations, where Descartes wrote 'I think, therefore I am'. Pushing the walkway worker is plainly right. To sum up fairly, utilitarianism is the only rational theory, so the count settles the case." Mark every error you find, name the failure it shows, and correct it by hand against the packet and Chapter 12; find at least two. Submit the marked-up analysis with your corrections in place of the chatbot report and share link. If you take the Kantian side in your dialogue, rebuild the printed claim that the count settles the case at its strongest as a utilitarian would state it; if you take the utilitarian side, rebuild the printed claim about Kant at its strongest as a Kantian would state it.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The three completed tables from Part 4, including the counts with their subtractions
• The four reconstructions, the same-shape argument for A3, and the four-to-six-line dialogue
• Written answers to all six analysis questions
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Philosophy Workshop report on one illustrative quarry rail packet: three completed tables (four arguments keyed for validity with reasons and the premise a defender of another theory rejects; the counts of valid and invalid arguments and of workers, with their subtractions; and the walkway worked step by step), a same-shape argument for A3, a four-to-six-line dialogue between a utilitarian and a Kantian ending in a plain sentence, written answers to six analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's version of the same work, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Choose how you show it: written answers, a recorded explanation with a transcript, or labelled tables with short notes; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria. 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.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Accurate reconstruction and validity judgment	All four arguments are in standard form, each form is named and keyed valid or invalid with a reason from the definition, each row names the premise a defender of another theory rejects, A3 has a working same-shape argument, and both counts are worked with their subtractions.	Most arguments are reconstructed and keyed with reasons, but one is misnamed or miskeyed, a rejected premise or the same-shape argument is missing, or a count is missing or off.	The reconstructions are missing, or the keys rest on whether conclusions sound right rather than on form.
Thought-experiment test	The walkway table gives the utilitarian and the Kantian reading, says with a reason whether pushing pulls the intuition differently from the switch, ties the difference to the formula of humanity, and labels the case as a variation.	The table is mostly complete, but the comparison with the switch has no reason, or the formula the difference turns on is not named.	No walkway table appears, or the variation is treated as Foot's own case.
Two positions stated fairly in dialogue	The dialogue gives the utilitarian and the Kantian each their strongest point, has each answer the other, connects the walkway to A2 or A4, and ends in one plain sentence naming where they disagree.	Both positions appear, but one is weakened (for example Kant presented as forbidding all use of others as means), the speakers talk past each other, or the closing sentence is missing.	No dialogue, or only one side is stated.
Caught-and-corrected AI slip, on either route	The chatbot critique report, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis, quotes at least two errors, names the failure each shows, and corrects each by hand against the packet and Chapter 12; either route earns this band equally.	One error is quoted and corrected on either route, or errors are named without a correction.	No critique on either route, or chatbot output is pasted without checking it.
Accurate sourcing and reflection	The runaway tram case is credited to Philippa Foot (1967) and its name to Thomson (1976), any quoted formula to Abbott's translation of Kant's Groundwork (1785), both variations are labelled, nothing is invented, and the reflection answers option (a) or (b) with a reason.	The sourcing is accurate but the reflection is thin, or the reflection is strong but one attribution goes beyond the pinned record.	An invented quotation, work, or date appears, and there is no reflection.

Quality Gate

• Every argument is in standard form, with numbered premises and a conclusion line introduced by So.
• Every key says valid or invalid with a reason from the definition, the invalid argument has a working same-shape argument with true premises and a false conclusion, and no argument in the packet is called sound or unsound.
• The spur case is labelled as a variation of Philippa Foot's runaway tram case, the walkway as a variation on the shape of the footbridge, the name trolley problem is credited to Thomson, and any quoted formula is credited to Abbott's translation.
• Each position in the dialogue is stated as its strongest defenders would, and no verdict is announced on whether throwing the switch or pushing the worker is right.
• No quotation, work, date, or philosopher's view is invented anywhere in the submission.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors by hand.