• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Hypotheticals and Certainty

    June 21st, 2013
    morality  [html]
    Consider two questions:
    1. If I push something off of a five foot ledge, will it take longer to fall than if I push something off of a one foot ledge?
    2. If a doctor could save five lives by killing one person and distributing their organs, should they do it?
    Both questions take a complex situation and reduce it to some simple facts, right? But they feel so different! Why?

    In the first most people will accept the facts and the abstraction. You could ask about air resistance, knowlege of the relative ledge heights, or whether the reference frame is inertial, but they're clearly not important. The question reduces to "do things take longer to fall farther?", and people feel comfortable responding "yes".

    In the second, however, while some people will just say "no" and a very few will just say "yes", most people will want clarification. How does the doctor know the organs won't be rejected? Will other people find out and start avoiding doctors? Even if the person proposing the hypothetical gives answers that keep the problem tidy (the doctor is very reliable, has run lots of tests, no one will ever know what happened, ...) most people still won't be satisfied or give a yes/no answer.

    This tendency for people to look at morality questions and reject the abstractions of the hypothetical annoys philosophers, but it's actually valuable. We examine simplified problems so that we can understand what's important in dealing with the real world, but whether this is helpful depends on whether the simplified problem captures what's important.

    A very common simplification is that you're completely confident in the facts of the matter. You're told that killing the one will save the five without any future effects. But any morality for real humans is and must be a morality of uncertainty and bias. We need to take into account that even when we're really sure of things there's a substantial chance we're wrong. We naturally fight hypotheticals where we're asked to assume we have perfect certainty, and this is a very healthy reaction.

    Comment via: google plus, facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    It's ok to feed stray cats

    Before we had kids, Jeff and I fostered a couple of cats. One had feline AIDS and was very skinny. Despite our frugal grocery budget of the time, I put olive oil on her food, determined to get her healthier. I knew that stray cats were not a top global pr…

    via Giving Gladly May 15, 2021

    Collections: Teaching Paradox, Europa Universalis IV, Part III: Europa Provincalis

    This is the third part of our series (I, II) examining the historical assumptions of Paradox Interactive’s grand strategy computer game set in the early modern period, Europa Universalis IV (which is in turn the start of a yet larger series looking at sev…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry May 14, 2021

    Randal O’Toole Gets High-Speed Rail Wrong

    Now that there’s decent chance of US investment in rail, Randal O’Toole is resurrecting his takes from the early Obama era, warning that high-speed rail is a multi-trillion dollar money sink. It’s not a good analysis, and in particular it gets the reality…

    via Pedestrian Observations May 12, 2021

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact