← 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

depth 1 2 3 both pro con
Trolley-style thought experiments lack evidential value for normative ethics because responses to them track framing artifacts rather than stable moral commitments
[+0] validity 0.0 centrality 15.0 consensus 0 depth 0.0
experimental-philosophy metaethics moral-psychology philosophy virtues
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 [i] metaphilosophy philosophy
[+0] Framing sensitivity of comparable magnitude affects perceptual judgments that nobody treats as evidentially worthless [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 [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) [i] adversarial-collaboration experimental-philosophy
[+0] The 19-point minimum asymmetry gap exceeds the largest single framing effect (18 points) recorded across the same protocol [i] experimental-philosophy statistics
loading 1 more…
2 claims beyond depth 2 not shown — [go deeper]
inspector

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