Software developer with an interest in rationality, consciousness, philosophy and spirituality.
This sounds intuitively interesting to me.
Can you maybe give an example or two (or one example and one counter example) to help illustrate how a moral principle displaying "robustness to auxiliary information" operates in practice, versus one that does not? Specifically, I'm interested in understanding how the variance in outcomes might manifest with the addition of new information.
Thanks for the explanation. This makes a lot of sense to me now. I'm glad I asked!
While I agree that there is value in "don't tie yourself up in knots overthinking", my intuition tells me that there is a lot of value in just knowing about / considering that there is more information about a situation to be had, which might, in theory, influence my decision about that situation in important ways. It changes how I engange with all kinds of situations beforehand, and also after the fact. So considering the motivations and backstories of the people in the trolley-problem does have value, even if in that particular moment I do not have the time to gather more information and a decision needs to be made quickly.
I don't think that this point needs to be made for people on this forum. It's more aimed at people who are looking for rules / strategies / heuristics to robotically and mindlessly apply them to their lives (and enforce those rules for others).