The Philosophy Behind It
Paths of Conscience doesn't test whether you are a "good person." It maps where you stand across the spectrum of legitimate philosophical traditions.
The Trolley Problem was proposed by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967 and later expanded by Judith Jarvis Thomson.
This app transforms that thought experiment into an interactive journey of ethical self-knowledge.
The 6 Traditions
Every scenario draws from one or more of these schools of thought.
Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill
The morally correct action maximizes total well-being. In the trolley context, the utilitarian calculates lives saved and acts accordingly. Peter Singer extends this to all conscious beings.
“What produces the best outcome for the greatest number?”
Deontology
Immanuel Kant
Some actions are intrinsically wrong regardless of consequences. Actively killing one person — even to save five — violates the categorical imperative of never treating someone merely as a means to an end.
“Is this action morally correct in itself, regardless of the result?”
Ethics of Care
Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings
Prioritizes relationships, vulnerability, and emotional responsibility. Decisions are shaped not by abstract principles or calculations, but by the particular bonds and duties of care we hold toward specific people.
“Who is most vulnerable, and who has a duty of care?”
Contractualism
Thomas Scanlon, John Rawls
Actions are evaluated based on principles that no one could reasonably reject. Rawls' veil of ignorance asks: if you didn't know your position in society, which rule would you accept as fair?
“Would this principle be fair for everyone, including the most disadvantaged?”
Virtue Ethics
Aristotle
Focuses not on the action itself but on the character of the agent. A virtuous person acts with courage, temperance, justice, and practical wisdom. The question isn't 'what to do' but 'who do I want to be?'
“What would a person of good character do in this situation?”
Rule Consequentialism
Richard Brandt, Brad Hooker
Evaluates the morality of general rules rather than individual acts. Instead of asking whether this specific act maximizes good, it asks: if everyone followed this rule, would the overall result be better?
“If this rule were universal, would the world be better?”
The 6 Dimensions
Each choice is scored across 6 ethical axes, from -5 to +5.
Utilitarianism vs. Deontology
Willingness to cause active harm to maximize total good
Rationalism vs. Emotionalism
Whether decisions shift when children or loved ones are involved
Individualism vs. Collectivism
Priority of individual rights vs. collective security
Action vs. Omission
Tendency to intervene actively vs. maintain the distinction between causing and allowing
Consistency vs. Contextuality
Whether the same logic applies regardless of context
Absolutism vs. Pragmatism
Whether you identify inviolable moral limits
The 9 Levels
The journey escalates in moral complexity.
The pure trolley problem. Your moral baseline.
Children on the tracks. Does innocence change the calculus?
Prisoners vs. doctors. Pushing vs. pulling the lever.
Your friend, your child, yourself on the tracks.
Medical ethics, AI delegation, torture, resource allocation.
Scapegoats, Omelas, eugenics, total surveillance.
Your own past choices come back to confront you.
Consciousness merger, brain alteration, species design.
The last question is about you.
What This Is Not
Not a game. There are no points, no achievements, no leaderboards. The scenarios are crafted to provoke genuine moral reflection.
Not a test of moral superiority. Every philosophical tradition represented here is legitimate. Utilitarians, deontologists, and virtue ethicists all have compelling arguments. Your profile reflects your intuitions — not your worth.
Not a judgment. The app does not tell you what to think. It shows you what you already think — and invites you to reflect on whether that aligns with who you want to be.
The greatest philosophers in history
disagree on these dilemmas. This app honors that disagreement.
Begin Your Journey