Ethics 108 (2):367-385 (1998)

Abstract
To what extent can philosophical thought experiments reveal norms? Some ethicists have argued that certain thought experiments reveal that people draw a morally significant distinction between "doing" and "allowing". I examine one such thought experiment in detail and argue that the intuitions it elicits can be explained by "prospect theory", a psychological theory about the way people reason. The extent to which such alternative explanations of the results of thought experiments in philosophy are generally available is an empirical question
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/233809
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 61,025
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

What Good Are Counterexamples?Brian Weatherson - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 115 (1):1-31.
Intuition.Joel Pust - 2017 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

View all 39 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Defense of Intuitions.S. Matthew Liao - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 140 (2):247 - 262.
Psychology and the Use of Intuitions in Philosophy.Brian Talbot - 2009 - Studia Philosophica Estonica 2 (2):157-176.
What Good Are Counterexamples?Brian Weatherson - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 115 (1):1-31.
The Role of Theory Contamination in Intuitions.James McBain - 1999 - Southwest Philosophy Review 15 (1):197-204.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
299 ( #29,644 of 2,439,609 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #167,855 of 2,439,609 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes