= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Matt_Stevenson 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)
I would compare the trolley problem to a hypothetical physics problem. Just like a physicist will assume a frictionless surface and no air resistance, the trolley problem is important because it discards everything else. It is a reductionist attempt at exploring moral thought.
Interesting thought, but it wouldn't be difficult to take the time to make situations more lifelike and realistic. There's plenty of real life situations that let you explore moral thought without the flaws listed above.
It isn't necessarily difficult for a good physicist to factor in friction and air resistance, either. But those are distractions, unnecessarily drawing effort and attention away from the specific force actually being studied. That's what the trolley problem also tries to do: create a simplified environment so that a single variable can be examined.
But physicists don't ignore friction when performing experiments, they do so only in teaching. If philosophers used trolley problems only to teach ethics ("Push one fat philosopher onto the tracks, to save two drug addicts.") or to teach metaethics ("An adherent of virtue ethics probably wouldn't push") then I doubt that lionhearted would complain.
But we have psychologists using trolley problems to perform experiments (or, if from Harvard, to publish papers in which they claim to have conducted experiments). That is what I understand lionhearted to be objecting to.
Excellent point; conceded.
(I haven't made up my mind yet about whether I agree with the thesis of the post, so I'm making arguments for both sides as I think of them and seeing which ones get refuted.)
Physicists ignore friction when teaching, when thinking, and when performing experiments. Doing so reduces confusion, and allows for greater understanding of the effects of friction once attention is turned to it.
The fact that the analogous situation in moral philosophy increases confusion is revealing.
Yes. It reveals that physicists understand their subject well enough to know what can profitably be ignored ... but moral philosophers do not.
I don't disagree.
I think a better example than frictionless surfaces and no air resistance would be idealized symmetries. Once something like Coulomb's Law was postulated physicists would imagine the implications of charges on infinite wires and planes to make interesting predictions.
We use the trolley problem and its variations as thought experiments in order to make predictions we can test further with MRIs and the like.
So a publication on interesting trolley problem results would be like theoretical physics paper showing relativity predicts some property of black holes.
Nitpick: I think you're implying that no philosophers are drug addicts.
Suppose that both the people on the bridge are sufficiently heavy to stop the trolley. Should one of them sacrifice themself, or are both obligated to try to preserve their lives by fighting not to be thrown off?
Sorry. What I meant to suggest is that drug addicts are thin.