Trolley problem: Difference between revisions

Line 5:

}}

{{drop|P|hilosophy ''loves'' conundrums}} like the trolley problem. Philippa Foot invented it in the 1960s<ref>''The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect'' (1967)</ref> as a thought experiment to compare the moral qualities of ''co''mmission and ''o''mission. We might, Foot thought, think it acceptable to divert a runaway trolley away from the larger group of workers, as the desired action is “steering ''away'' from these victims” rather than toward the single worker. While the consequence of doing so (the single worker’s death) is foreseeable, it is an unwanted contingency flowing from the action rather than its intended effect. On the other hand, pushing an innocent bystander onto the first track to stop the trolley before it gets to the six workers is directly to intend one person’s death, which is ''not'' acceptable, even though the outcome would be the same.

{{drop|P|hilosophy ''loves'' conundrums}} like the trolley problem. Philippa Foot invented it in the 1960s<ref>''The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect'' (1967)</ref> as a [[thought experiment]] to compare the moral qualities of ''co''mmission and ''o''mission. We might, Foot thought, think it acceptable to divert a runaway trolley away from the larger group of workers, as the desired action is “steering ''away'' from these victims” rather than toward the single worker. While the consequence of doing so (the single worker’s death) is foreseeable, it is an unwanted contingency flowing from the action rather than its intended effect. On the other hand, pushing an innocent bystander onto the first track to stop the trolley before it gets to the six workers is directly to intend one person’s death, which is ''not'' acceptable, even though the outcome would be the same.

This is a neat challenge to extreme utilitarianism but, still, a narrow point, long since lost on netizens who now trot the problem out when discussing real, not metaphorical, runaway trolleys: driverless cars.

Line 19:

====Parallel worlds of science and philosophy====

{{~~Drop|S|cientists live in~~}} this [[Simple system|simple]], stable world filled to the brim with countless, benign little engines — “[[nomological machine]]s” — by which everything reliably ''works''. In this idealised world, we can predict the period of a swinging pendulum with Galileo’s equation. We can calculate the pressure and volume of a quantity of gas with Boyle’s law. We can explain the accelerating expansion of the universe with dark matter, dark energy and an arbitrary cosmological constant. [''I don’t think this last one is a great example — Ed'']

~~In the scientists’s world, ''everything'' runs like clockwork.<ref>This clockwork world is a beguiling lie, as [[Nancy Cartwright]] argues.</ref>~~

Philosophers inhabit, more or less, a dark inversion of the scientists’ world. Theirs is, instead, a universe of ''insoluble conundrums''. They also fill their space with [[Nomological machine|ingenious devices]], only malicious ones: “thought experiments” invented ''specifically to bugger everything up''.

~~In the scientist’s world, everything goes to plan. In the philosophers’ world, ''nothing'' does.~~

For every scientific axiom, whirring happily away in its intricate cage, plotting out the reliable progress of the world, the philosophers have their obstreperous demonic contraptions: here, a ''brain in a vat'', there, a ''Chinese room'', over yonder, a ''parallel universe'' — designed to throw the whole edifice into confusion.

====Negative-Lindy effect====

{{drop|J|ust as science}} is designed to ~~pleasingly~~ explain the world as we experience it, philosophy is there to question our basic assumptions about it. Science is our happy place; philosophy is our neurotic one.

{{drop|J|ust as science}} is designed pleasingly to explain the world as we experience it, philosophy is there to question our basic assumptions about it. Science is our happy place; philosophy is our neurotic one.

Philosophical thought experiments are ''meant'' to confuse us. But since we perceive the world to be largely reliable, constant and consistent — thanks to regularities that our scientific “engines” explain — philosophy’s thought experiments must be ''entirely hypothetical''.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 }}
-{{drop|P|hilosophy ''loves'' conundrums}} like the trolley problem. Philippa Foot invented it in the 1960s<ref>''The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect'' (1967)</ref> as a thought experiment to compare the moral qualities of ''co''mmission and ''o''mission. We might, Foot thought, think it acceptable to divert a runaway trolley away from the larger group of workers, as the desired action is “steering ''away'' from these victims” rather than toward the single worker. While the consequence of doing so (the single worker’s death) is foreseeable, it is an unwanted contingency flowing from the action rather than its intended effect. On the other hand, pushing an innocent bystander onto the first track to stop the trolley before it gets to the six workers is directly to intend one person’s death, which is ''not'' acceptable, even though the outcome would be the same.
+{{drop|P|hilosophy ''loves'' conundrums}} like the trolley problem. Philippa Foot invented it in the 1960s<ref>''The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect'' (1967)</ref> as a [[thought experiment]] to compare the moral qualities of ''co''mmission and ''o''mission. We might, Foot thought, think it acceptable to divert a runaway trolley away from the larger group of workers, as the desired action is “steering ''away'' from these victims” rather than toward the single worker. While the consequence of doing so (the single worker’s death) is foreseeable, it is an unwanted contingency flowing from the action rather than its intended effect. On the other hand, pushing an innocent bystander onto the first track to stop the trolley before it gets to the six workers is directly to intend one person’s death, which is ''not'' acceptable, even though the outcome would be the same.
 This is a neat challenge to extreme utilitarianism but, still, a narrow point, long since lost on netizens who now trot the problem out when discussing real, not metaphorical, runaway trolleys: driverless cars.
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ====Parallel worlds of science and philosophy====
-{{Drop|S|cientists live in}} this [[Simple system|simple]], stable world filled to the brim with countless, benign little engines — “[[nomological machine]]s” — by which everything reliably ''works''. In this idealised world, we can predict the period of a swinging pendulum with Galileo’s equation. We can calculate the pressure and volume of a quantity of gas with Boyle’s law. We can explain the accelerating expansion of the universe with dark matter, dark energy and an arbitrary cosmological constant. [''I don’t think this last one is a great example — Ed'']
+{{thought experiments capsule}}
-In the scientists’s world, ''everything'' runs like clockwork.<ref>This clockwork world is a beguiling lie, as [[Nancy Cartwright]] argues.</ref>
-Philosophers inhabit, more or less, a dark inversion of the scientists’ world. Theirs is, instead, a universe of ''insoluble conundrums''. They also fill their space with [[Nomological machine|ingenious devices]], only malicious ones: “thought experiments” invented ''specifically to bugger everything up''.
-In the scientist’s world, everything goes to plan. In the philosophers’ world, ''nothing'' does.
-For every scientific axiom, whirring happily away in its intricate cage, plotting out the reliable progress of the world, the philosophers have their obstreperous demonic contraptions: here, a ''brain in a vat'', there, a ''Chinese room'', over yonder, a ''parallel universe'' — designed to throw the whole edifice into confusion.
 ====Negative-Lindy effect====
-{{drop|J|ust as science}} is designed to pleasingly explain the world as we experience it, philosophy is there to question our basic assumptions about it. Science is our happy place; philosophy is our neurotic one.
+{{drop|J|ust as science}} is designed pleasingly to explain the world as we experience it, philosophy is there to question our basic assumptions about it. Science is our happy place; philosophy is our neurotic one.
 Philosophical thought experiments are ''meant'' to confuse us. But since we perceive the world to be largely reliable, constant and consistent — thanks to  regularities that our scientific “engines” explain — philosophy’s thought experiments must be ''entirely hypothetical''.