In this episode of Making Sense, Sam Harris and his guest explore fundamental questions in moral philosophy through classic thought experiments. They examine how philosophers use these experiments to isolate specific ethical questions, discussing the famous trolley problem and its variations that reveal how people's moral judgments can shift based on subtle changes in circumstances.
The conversation delves into consequentialism—the theory that judges actions solely by their outcomes—and its limitations when applied to real-world moral dilemmas. Harris and his guest also examine Peter Singer's "Shallow Pond" thought experiment, which raises questions about moral obligations and the relationship between physical proximity and ethical duty, particularly in the context of global poverty and suffering.

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
Edmonds explains that philosophers use thought experiments as tools to strip away real-world complications and focus on specific ethical questions. While these artificial scenarios help isolate variables that influence our moral judgments, they can be controversial because our moral intuitions are shaped by real-life circumstances rather than extraordinary conditions. Sam Harris adds that these moral intuitions might be tied to consequences or even represent moral illusions.
The trolley problem, introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967, presents a scenario where one must decide whether to divert a runaway train to kill one person instead of five. Harris notes that about 95% of people find this acceptable. However, when Judith Jarvis Thomson modified the scenario to involve pushing someone off a bridge to stop the train, most people found it morally unacceptable despite the similar outcome. This difference, Harris explains, stems from the direct manipulation of another person's body as a means to an end.
Edmonds describes consequentialism as an ethical theory focusing solely on outcomes to determine morality. Under pure consequentialism, the trolley scenarios should be judged equally since their outcomes are identical. However, Harris suggests considering secondary psychological consequences in moral judgments. The doctrine of double effect distinguishes between intended harm and unintended consequences, highlighting a limitation of consequentialism that doesn't account for intentions behind actions.
Edmonds discusses Peter Singer's influential "Shallow Pond" thought experiment, which examines moral obligations and personal sacrifice. The experiment poses a scenario about saving a drowning child at personal cost, which Singer uses to challenge our different responses to proximate versus distant suffering. Singer draws a parallel between the immediate duty to save a drowning child and the moral imperative to help those in extreme poverty, regardless of geographical distance.
1-Page Summary
Philosophers often employ thought experiments to distill complex ethical dilemmas into their essentials, revealing insights into our moral reasoning. Through these artificial scenarios, we examine moral intuitions and the variables that influence our judgments.
Edmonds describes thought experiments in philosophy as tools to isolate extraneous circumstances to focus on distinct areas of a problem. They create artificial worlds that are clearer to analyze because the real world is fraught with complications that can muddle our understanding.
However, Edmonds notes that these experiments can be controversial. The strange and artificial scenarios can challenge our moral intuitions, which are honed by real-life circumstances, not the extraordinary conditions posited in thought experiments. Philosophers often craft hypotheticals that are insulated from wider societal effects which, Edmonds argues, challenges people's intuitions, as it is difficult for them to imagine these scenarios without assuming there would be some leak to the public.
Thought Experiments in Moral Philosophy
The trolley problem, introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967, presents a moral dilemma involving a runaway train and offers insight into ethical decision-making.
Philippa Foot's original trolley problem scenario asks if it’s permissible to divert a runaway train to a different track where it will kill one person instead of five.
Harris notes that a vast majority of people—95%, according to his discussions—believe it is acceptable to divert the train, thus sacrificing one person to save five.
The ethical debate intensifies with a variation of the problem where direct physical action is required to stop the train, leading to moral intuitions clashing despite similar outcomes.
Judith Jarvis Thomson added a twist to the trolley problem where one could stop the train by pushing a man with a heavy rucksack off a bridge. Contrasting with the original problem, this scenario does not gain the same consensus amo ...
The Trolley Problem and Related Thought Experiments
Exploring the ethical theory of consequentialism, Edmonds and Harris delve into how it applies to moral dilemmas such as the trolley problem, while also discussing its limitations including the doctrine of double effect.
Consequentialism is the ethical theory that focuses solely on outcomes to determine the morality of an action, with no inherent concern for the nature of the actions themselves.
Edmonds asserts that, according to pure consequentialism, there should be no moral distinction between flipping a switch or pushing a person to halt a trolley—if in both scenarios, one person dies and five are saved, the outcomes are equivalent, and therefore the actions are equally justifiable.
Harris points out the different psychological outcomes between such scenarios. He suggests that a more nuanced consequentialist perspective should consider these secondary, psychological consequences, thereby enriching the discussion around morality beyond mere immediate physical results.
Criticism arises in the context of consequentialism as it seems, on the surface, to disregard the nuances of moral judgment, such as the contrasting intentions behind similar outcomes.
The doctrine of double effect distinguishes between actions where harm is intentional and those where harm is an unintended byproduct. Edmonds, referencing this doctrine, discusses the moral intuition that perceives a difference between intending harm as a necessary part of saving others (pushing the fat man onto the tracks) versus harm being a forese ...
Consequentialism Principles and Application to Moral Dilemmas
David Edmonds explores moral philosophy and the concept of effective altruism through the lens of Peter Singer's "Shallow Pond" thought experiment.
Edmonds' book, "Death in a Shallow Pond, a Philosopher, a Drowning Child, and Strangers in Need," includes a biography of Peter Singer and traces the development of the effective altruism movement inspired by Singer's work. It discusses consequentialism and addresses the subjects through the thought experiment known as Singer's "Shallow Pond." Edmonds describes Singer's thought experiment as the second most famous in moral philosophy, arguing that it is more influential than the trolley problem and centers on notions of sacrifice and moral duty in life-or-death situations.
The discussion of Singer's thought experiment relates to the moral obligations individuals have, such as the obligation to save a drowning child even if it comes at a personal cost. This thought experiment prompts reflection on our intuitions about moral duty and sacrifice, contributing to an understanding of consequentialism and moral intuitions.
Harris alludes to Singer's "Shallow Pond" thought experiment by comparing the common response to the trolley ...
Peter Singer's "Shallow Pond" Thought Experiment
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
