← 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
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] epistemology methodology perception
[+0] Moral intuitions show convergent validity across independently constructed case sets at r=0.58, comparable to convergence across perceptual modalities discuss [i] moral-psychology psychometrics
[+0] The Switch/Footbridge asymmetry survives every framing manipulation tested in a 27-manipulation adversarial protocol (Ferreiro & Adeyemi, 2023, N=19,400) discuss [i] adversarial-collaboration
[+0] The 19-point minimum asymmetry gap exceeds the largest single framing effect (18 points) recorded across the same protocol discuss [i] 1 more statistics
1 more — see its evidence
2 claims beyond depth 2 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.