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

← 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]

[+0] Endorsement differences between physical-contact and lever variants vanish under a 90-second forced-deliberation delay (Petrossian, 2022) discuss [i] dual-process

[+0] Order of presentation reverses majority verdicts on Footbridge in 31% of subjects (Lindqvist & Ojeda, 2020, N=4,812) discuss [i]

[+0] Trolley verdicts show test-retest reliability of r=0.34 at six months, versus r=0.71 for the same subjects' abortion and capital punishment attitudes discuss [i] psychometrics

[+0] Order effects on trolley cases persist among professional philosophers with AOS in ethics (Ojeda et al., 2022, N=387) discuss [i] 1 more metaphilosophy

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 inspect marker to see who asserted it, why, and what it cites.