← back to claim Trolley-style thought experiments lack evidential value for normative ethics because responses to them track framing artifacts rather than stable moral commitments

evidence graph

Trolley-style thought experiments lack evidential value for normative ethics because responses to them track framing artifacts rather than stable moral commitments
supports (3)
[+0] Trolley intuitions are a cultural artifact of Anglophone analytic training and are absent in most human societies discuss [i] anthropology
[+0] Verdicts on Footbridge shift 18 points when the victim is described as 'a large man' versus 'a person wearing a heavy backpack', despite causal structure being identical discuss [i] 1 more
1 more — see its evidence
[+0] Order of presentation reverses majority verdicts on Footbridge in 31% of subjects (Lindqvist & Ojeda, 2020, N=4,812) discuss [i] 2 more
2 more — see its evidence
opposes (3)
[+0] Normative arguments using trolley cases rely on the cases' conceptual structure rather than on survey majorities, so response instability is beside the point discuss [i] metaphilosophy
[+0] Framing sensitivity of comparable magnitude affects perceptual judgments that nobody treats as evidentially worthless discuss [i] 1 more epistemology methodology perception
1 more — see its evidence
[+0] The Switch/Footbridge asymmetry survives every framing manipulation tested in a 27-manipulation adversarial protocol (Ferreiro & Adeyemi, 2023, N=19,400) discuss [i] 1 more adversarial-collaboration
1 more — see its evidence
7 claims beyond depth 1 not shown — [go deeper] depth 1 2 3 both pro con
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
inspector

Select a link’s marker to see who asserted it, why, and what it cites.