= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tordmor comments on The Problem With Trolley Problems - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (112)
Your argument could be phrased as: 1. trolley problems are a philosophical tool to help in debate about moral beliefs. 2. people sometimes use these tools out of context 3. therefore trolley problems are "a waste of time at best" This doesn't follow. They're only a waste of time at best if they are never used in context or are inefficient then and you didn't discuss that at all.
You should have phrased that as: Even if trolley problems are good at testing moral intuitions in theory, discussing them might make people prone to these errors in real life moral thinking.
My argument is that putting forward a hypothetical situation with perfect foresight, ignoring secondary effects, ignoring human nature, and constraining decisions to two options leads to bad thinking.
On the contrary - I don't think trolley problems are good at testing moral intuitions in theory.
Yes, that is what you argue for. But an argument doesn't only contain obeservations, it needs a setup where you put the argument in context and a conclusion where you show how your observations relate to your setup. Your setup is that trolley problems are a theoretical tool but your observations all come from real life situations that simply doesn't match and that diminishes the quality of your argument.
And that is what you have in your setup but then don't substantiate. That is what doesn't follow from your observations.