I've noted this in comments at Reddit’s trolley problem subreddit, but I decided it was time to make a post there, based on this piece at Psy Post which had just popped up in my blogroll on my Blogger site:
In a recent paper published in the Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, Guy Crian critiques the “trolley method” of moral philosophy for its unrealistic simplification of moral decision-making, lack of consideration for the complexity and diversity of real-life ethical situations, and potential to mislead about the nature of moral agency and ethical reasoning.
Next, three pullouts.
First, the trolley method emphasizes dramatic scenarios that are rare or extreme compared to the everyday ethical decisions that people face. ...
Second, the method tends to present moral agents as generic or anonymized figures, ostensibly to make the scenarios universally applicable. However, this approach overlooks the fact that respondents often unconsciously fill in missing details based on their own biases or assumptions. ...
Third, the critique points out that the trolley method models ethical decision-making as a clear-cut choice between distinct options. Real-life ethical decision-making is often automatic and influenced by factors beyond immediate conscious deliberation. ...
Update: The derpity of the handwaving and more over at my Reddit post is laughable, if not head-shaking.
The worst is from SM Lion El, who says:
As someone with a philosophy degree it definitely is a philosophical question because it forces someone to consider their personal moral responses to a situation. I tend to believe that any question that forces a person to introspectively examine themselves is a philosophical question.
Really? You just ignored the whole post about how this is NOT a real philosophical problem, and also ignored all other commenters who disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment