tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post8804044042358139121..comments2024-03-02T09:41:35.809-08:00Comments on Donkeylicious - A Blog by Neil Sinhababu and Nicholas Beaudrot: Confessions Of A Renegade TrolleyologistNeil Sinhababuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-23778129505980613362009-02-18T14:52:00.000-08:002009-02-18T14:52:00.000-08:00"it provides a jumping-off point for exploring how..."it provides a jumping-off point for exploring how we relate to moral hypotheticals like this"<BR/><BR/>C.S., that's basically what I'm doing here. I'm just taking a small piece of it at a time -- the vivid imagination piece.Neil Sinhababuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03249327186653397250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-75842233689469936212009-02-16T21:54:00.000-08:002009-02-16T21:54:00.000-08:00FWIW to the extent you're attempting to collect co...FWIW to the extent you're attempting to collect comparative data, I was one of the "yes, hit the button" responses to the original hypo, and my response is the same for fat man: push him in front of the train (given all the usual/same caveats, perfect knowledge about outcomes, etc.). The deontological move just strikes me as a cop-out when you're going to cause a certain number of deaths by "not" taking a certain action as well as by taking that action.<BR/><BR/>Another way to explain the discrepancy might be: the blogosphere is self-selecting, and maybe particularly for people who read liberal blogs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-57675077290999158922009-02-16T10:57:00.000-08:002009-02-16T10:57:00.000-08:00As I said in the comments in the original thread -...As I said in the comments in the original thread -- and which FearItself placed in a more concise manner here -- I don't think you're really measuring what you think you're measuring. This is due in large part to the unbelievability of the hypothetical proposed, which causes more heel-digging than the trollwy/fat-man scenario, which for all its faults was monumentally simpler than the one you propose. <BR/><BR/>Looking over the responses on the original thread, what I'm struck with is not the number of people who chose to push the button, but the number of folks who tinkered with the hypothetical in order to not push the button. This, I think, is invited by the complexity and unbelievability of the scenario. And ultimately, it's more interesting than confirming or rejecting Hauser's work, because it provides a jumping-off point for exploring how we relate to moral hypotheticals like this. It's about how we work things out -- rather than the static moral construct you and Hauser presuppose. <BR/><BR/>So, anyway, it's too bad you're more interested in the boring question than the interesting one. <BR/><BR/>C.S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-39706971445657048062009-02-14T07:25:00.000-08:002009-02-14T07:25:00.000-08:00I just posted a comment on the initial thread (I'm...I just posted a comment on the initial thread (I'm catching up on a backlog on my RSS feed, that's why I'm so late to the discussion). The argument I made there is simply this; once you offer up a hypothetical situation, especially an unrealistic one, you're no longer studying ethics. Real events have an "eventness" to them that uniquely engages us as moral actors, and imagination, no matter how vivid, is an inadequate substitute (in part, because we know we're imagining).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-84655082872779395482009-02-12T21:31:00.000-08:002009-02-12T21:31:00.000-08:00Neil, did you look at any of the rest of the exper...Neil, did you look at any of the rest of the experimental philosophy literature on this topic, or just at Hauser's work?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-90176692416313053992009-02-12T07:50:00.000-08:002009-02-12T07:50:00.000-08:00I think you and Hume are probably right that our i...I think you and Hume are probably right that our intuitions in these sorts of cases are affected by how vividly we picture the potential victims. <BR/><BR/>Years ago, when I first arrived in grad school, I thought that what I would end up doing would largely be playing with these such cases. Turned out that my interests are more meta and methodological.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, I've lately been thinking about this method of doing applied ethics, and also about a rival method (maybe call it 'the new casuistry') which uses real cases (most commonly drawn from the proceedings of hospital ethics boards, but there is no reason in principle that casuists can't look at cases from other domains). Both methods, it seems to me, are vulnerable to what John Quiggen has called moral arbitrage. I could go on, but my thoughts on this are only about half formed. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, the paper you contemplate seems to address a methodological worry that we might have with the use of these cases, but a worry that seems resolvable through careful specification of the case. I'm curious whether you have anything generally to say about the methodology implied (explicitly or otherwise) by the use of these cases within applied ethics.drhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18394331250444204958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-18684052098917982012009-02-12T04:54:00.000-08:002009-02-12T04:54:00.000-08:00I've listened to all I can take from Senator Mitch...<A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpfOWsfYww4" REL="nofollow">I've listened to all I can take from Senator Mitch McConnell and his cronies, so I decided to answer them with this video.</A>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08036815527116810006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3401584991689197404.post-90279500590530683742009-02-12T04:17:00.000-08:002009-02-12T04:17:00.000-08:00I've never liked the "pushing a fat man" example. ...I've never liked the "pushing a fat man" example. I think it adds too much uncertainty in people's minds as far as whether it will actually work -- ie. will the fat man stop the train and save the other lives? I don't think it's comparable to the "throwing a switch" question because of that uncertainty.<BR/><BR/>It might not account for the entire discrepancy between people who would throw the switch and would not push the fat man, but I think there's enough uncertainty there to question the results.<BR/><BR/>It's kind of like asking in a poll question "If the election were held today, would you vote for Senator Barack Obama or Hero John McCain?" You can't trust the results.TImhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03314649690571116693noreply@blogger.com