Abstract
James Wilson has criticised thought experiments in philosophical ethics for failing to reflect the reality of everyday life. As against this, many such experiments owe their potential value and efficacy to an abstract simplicity which gives them widespread explanatory power and application. Through the examination of two particular arguments—Peter Singer’s “Shallow Pond” and Philippa Foot’s “Trolley Problem”—a number of suggestions are made for strengthening the realism of ethical thought experiments by reference to sources drawn from literature and social science. The principal aim is to enhance the real-world relevance and cogency of the thought experiments by offering suggestions for material which can reinforce the main points of the arguments. Such supplementary support—including references to the current Coronavirus pandemic—for the ethical thought experiments is intended to enhance teaching and learning in moral education and philosophical ethics at all levels.
Highlights
James Wilson (2016) has explored the notions of internal and external validity in ethical thought experiments and offered trenchant critiques of a number of famous arguments in this sphere
Through the examination of two particular arguments—Peter Singer’s “Shallow Pond” and Philippa Foot’s “Trolley Problem”—a number of suggestions are made for strengthening the realism of ethical thought experiments by reference to sources drawn from literature and social science
Making use of the paradigm of the randomised control trial (RCT) common in medical science, an ethical thought experiment would be internally valid “to the extent that it has been carefully and systematically designed with sufficient care to give a high degree of confidence that the results reported accurately measure the nature and the effect size of the intervention tested.”
Summary
James Wilson (2016) has explored the notions of internal and external validity in ethical thought experiments and offered trenchant critiques of a number of famous arguments in this sphere. Making use of the paradigm of the randomised control trial (RCT) common in medical science, an ethical thought experiment would be internally valid “to the extent that it has been carefully and systematically designed with sufficient care to give a high degree of confidence that the results reported accurately measure the nature and the effect size of the intervention tested.”. Even if such a trial was satisfied such criteria “it may tell us little about whether the same intervention will work in other circumstances.” (p.7). The principal aim of this project is to provide additional material for analysis and discussion in the context of learning and teaching in ethics and moral education at all levels from school to university
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
