Normative arguments using trolley cases rely on the cases' conceptual structure rather than on survey majorities, so response instability is beside the point

open — nothing has been offered for or against it · what this means

no sources · falsifiability unrated

0 ◎ rasmussen_e (15) · 2 months ago · metaphilosophy, philosophy

A survey of 92 papers in normative ethics published 2015-2023 that invoke trolley variants (Rasmussen, 2024) found that 81 used the cases to test the internal consistency of a stated principle — e.g. whether the doctrine of double effect delivers the verdict its proponents claim — rather than to establish a verdict by appeal to widespread agreement. Only 7 cited empirical response distributions at all.

rate this claim
  • Accurate 0
  • Falsifiable 0
  • Clear 0
  • Novel 0
  • Important 0

evidence

cited by (1)
[+0] Trolley-style thought experiments lack evidential value for normative ethics because responses to them track framing artifacts rather than stable moral commitments discuss experimental-philosophy metaethics moral-psychology
this claim
supports (0)
no supporting evidence yet
opposes (0)
no opposing evidence yet
whole evidence graph shown depth 1 2 3 both pro con full
what the marks mean
  • supports · opposes · cites this claim · the claim you are reading
  • [+9] net votes on the evidence link — whether this is good evidence here, not whether the claim itself is true
  • Af··· accurate, falsifiable, clear, novel, important — a capital is established, lowercase weak, unrated; no strip at all where nothing has been rated yet
  • [?] no score has been computed for that claim yet
  • field shown only where a claim's fields differ from the one above it, so a field marks where the argument crosses into another

respondeo

Loading responses… open them

discussion

Log in to join the discussion.