How to Deal With Thought Experiment Deniers
How to convince people that thought experiments are legitimate
Throw them in a ditch.
In all seriousness.
Lots of people are very confused about thought experiments. They think that, for something to be a legitimate thought experiment, it has to have actually occurred in the real world. Thus, for example, ethically alien thought experiments will be dismissed out of hand because they’re not realistic.
These thought experiment desires are deeply confused—having a set of beliefs as deeply wrong as climate change deniers or flat earthers. Yet in this case, it’s often difficult to explain why thought experiments that are not realistic are still kosher. So, here’s my best advice to what to do when someone objects to various thought experiments.
First, point out how widespread and well-accepted thought experiments are. The trolley problem has almost certainly never happened—the bridge case definitely has not, and yet most people agree that these pose interesting philosophical questions. Now, sometimes these people will deny that the trolley problem is a legitimate thought experiment, and then they’ll remain unconvinced. But pointing out that their position commits them to denying the philosophy 101 curriculum is often convincing, just as showing someone that their position commits them to denying the existence of cells is often effective in getting them to change their mind, if they take themselves to be a sophisticated biologist.
Second, explain the logic of why thought experiments serve as genuine counterexamples. If you endorse principle X and this entails Y, then you endorse Y. This is so regardless of whether Y has actually happened.
Third, point out that denying this results in something bizarre. Suppose you think that the bridge case is a genuine counterexample to utilitarianism. Then, in order to decide whether utilitarianism is true, you’ll have to get up from the arm chair and investigate the factual question of whether any fat men have been pushed off bridges to prevent a train from hitting five people. But this is bizarre. How could the question of whether or not you should be a utilitarian depend on whether, at some point, a fat man has been pushed off a bridge. Credit to Boonin for this idea.
Fourth, point out that there are lots of principles that have obvious counterexamples, even though they’ve never arisen. For example, the principle “it’s okay to cause suffering to beings that haven’t evolved from single-celled organisms” is false, and disproven by the counterexample of hypothetical beings that are just as smart as us, who shouldn’t be tortured, despite having not evolved from single called organism. However, the principle that they endorse would deny this counterexample.
Unfortunately, the people who make this objection are generally pitifully confused about philosophy. Thus, these approaches often won’t convince them, at least, not without a lot of wrangling. But I find that generally, eventually, it’s possible to convince most people.
I think another approach that's helpful is to start with an easy thought experiment:
What would you do if you won the lottery?
People can easily imagine and discuss what they would do in this situation. This shows that they don't have a principled objection to discussing things that haven't happened.
I think this is helpful because, often, when people hear someone say, "If X, then Y." they'll assume that the speaker is saying X is true. And as a matter of linguistic convention, they're often correct! Consider, for example, the mafia boss who says, "It sure would be a shame if something were to happen to your kneecaps."
The lottery example helps defuse this concern.
I think this is a good point for good-faith philosophical discussions. But I can't say that those have much impact on, say, the number of animals on factory farms.