Original:
Reverse:
I would like to know which other ethical thought experiments have this pattern...
Isn't the answer just "all of them"? The contrapositive of an implication is always true.
If (if X then Y) then (if ~Y then ~X). Any intuitive dissonance between X and Y is preserved by negating them into ~X and ~Y.
Many of these calculations get more consistent if you bite just one fairly large bullet: sub-linear scaling (I generally go with logarithmic) of value. Saving a marginal person at the cost of ruining a marginal suit is a value comparison, and the value of both people and suits can vary pretty widely based on context.
The hardest part of this acceptance is that human lives are not infinite nor incomparable in value. I also recommend accepting that value is personal and relative (each agent has a different utility function, with different coefficients for the value of categories and individual others), but that may not be fully necessary to resolve the simple examples you've given so far.
Original:
Reversed:
Isn't the original argument here just the Sorites "paradox"?
This proves too much. No ethical system I'm familiar with holds that because (physical) things change gradually over time, no moral rule can distinguish two things.
Original:
Reversed:
I feel like this one was presented as a clash of 2 intuitions, so both the "reversed" is also in the original presentation.
Original:
Reversed:
keyword to search: lexical threshold negative hedonistic utilitarianism
Original:
Reversed:
Original:
Reversed:
Could do the same with pulling a lever vs pushing a person
Original:
Reversed:
This type of argument is called "proof of contradiction". You start by supposing is true. Then you do a bunch of a logic which assumes is true. If, at the end, you prove something wrong then is false. Proofs by contradiction are frequently used in mathematics where (compared to morality) it's easy to ensure your logic remains ironclad.
I feel like this is something different; X isn't proven true or false here -- we just prove that if X then Y, and then also if ~Y then ~X
Some thought experiments follow this template:
Then some people bite the (3) bullet. But bullets sometimes (always?) have a counter-bullet.
You can reverse those thought experiments: take ~(3) as your starting moral intuition, and then derive ~(1) which will be counter-intuitive.
For example, you can start with:
This is called "shut up and multiply".
But you can also use the reverse:
This is called "shut up and divide" (also related: Boredom vs. Scope Insensitivity).
Step (2) might be eliminating a relevant feature which generates the counter-intuition, or it might be a way to open our eyes to something we were not seeing. And maybe for some thought experiment you find both the assumption and conclusion intuitive or counterintuitive. But that's not the object of this post.
Here I'm just interested in seeing what the reverse of ethical thought experiments look like. I'll put more examples as answer. I would like to know which other ethical thought experiments have this pattern -- that is, an ethical thought experiment that starts with an intuition to derive a counter-intuition, which can be reversed, to instead derive that the initial assumption is the wrong one.
Update: As I'm writing some of them, I realized some ethical thought experiment are presented as a clash of intuitions (so the "reverse" is part of the original presentation), whereas others seem to be trying to persuade the reader to bite the bullet on a certain counter-intuition, and omit to mention the reverse ethical thought experiment.