What is the purpose of a Philosophical Thought Experiment?
The purpose of philosophical thought experiments is not so much the specific answer to the question, but the reasoning it takes you to get that answer. Likely, you will never find yourself at the switch of a trolley car set to mow down people tied to the tracks (see Trolley Problem listed below). However, you might find yourself in a situation where you need to make difficult choices weighing complex philosophical and ethical dilemmas. These philosophical thought experiments help you to reason through such situations or come up with theoretical paradigms that give insight into the solving of complex questions. Therefore, as you progress through some of these questions, you are encouraged not just to come up with an answer, but also and more importantly answer the question of 'why?' you had come to that conclusion.
Many of the below examples where taken from or inspired by the following book...
What If...Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy by 
--Trolley Problem Image from Wikipedia
Original: You notice five individuals tied to some train (trolley) tracks. A train is coming right at them and you do not have the ability to untie them in time. However, you could pull a lever diverting the train to another set of tracks, but in so doing you would kill an innocent bystander who is tied to those tracks.
Variation #1: Your close relative that you love dearly is the individual on the other set of tracks and by diverting the train, you would kill them.
Variation #2: There is only one set of tracks bound to run over the five people. However, you notice a very large individual whom you can push in front of the train in order to stop it from running over the five people. This would kill the large individual.
Variation #3: You are a surgeon. You have a patient on your surgical table in for a routine surgery. However, you notice that the patient has organs compatible to several individuals needing transplants within your own hospital. If you harvest this person's organs, you can save five individuals needing transplants, but kill the patient on your operating table.
Real World Variation #4: You are programming a self-driving car. If five people run out onto the highway, do you program it to swerve off the road and kill the driver or run down the five individuals crossing the road?
What is the ethical choice in these situations? Take no action, or kill the individual to save the group? In these examples, we gave the example of five people. Would it matter if it was only two people, or was as many as twenty or twenty million?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Free Online Resources:
Library Resources:
Original: There is a very well-used boat. During the life of a ship, parts break down and are replaced. The mast, for instance, is lost in a storm and so they get a new one, some of the wood rots and is replaced with fresh timber, and the bolts and nails holding it together rust away and replaced with fresh nails. Eventually, none of the original materials that made up the ship are there. Yet, the boat still sails, same as ever. Is this the same boat or a different boat now?
Take our Poll!
Parfit Teletransportation Variation: A person steps into a transportation machine. The first part of the transportation machine scans the persons body and the vaporizes it, destroying it completely. The second part of the transportation machine then prints out an identical version of the person, using some bio-inks they had on hand. The copy has all the same mental and physical attributes of the original along with all the memories of their original. Is this person the same person, or a new and different person?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Free Resources:
Library Resources:
You are a doctor in the future. A patient comes into your office with several symptoms, and you quickly identify their ailment-- a failing heart. They could potentially die without treatment. In fact, they pass out in your office. Luckily, you know all that is required is a simple surgery in which you can give your patient a synthetic heart and they will be good as new. Yet, as you are preparing to take the patient into surgery, a small medical card falls out of their pocket indicating that for religious reasons, they do not want any synthetic organs. If you do not install the synthetic heart, the patient could die. But, if you do, you will be violating the patient's wishes.
Child Variation: Let us say the patient is a child with the same condition. The parents tell you that they do not want to give them a synthetic heart for religious reasons. You tell the parents the child will die without the surgery. They are not swayed. Let us say that in this example, you have the legal authority to do whatever you want. Do you perform the surgery anyway? Or do you respect the parent's wishes and let their child die?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Free Resources:
Library Resources:
You have just successfully launched a social media company that allows users to debate, discuss, and share information about a variety of issues. Initially, this seemed to go great and a lot genuine dialogue was generated. However, recently you noticed that a lot of people and even some organizations are either intentionally or unwittingly sharing information that is false or misleading. Moreover, these false posts seem to be generating a lot of interest on your platform. Some of these false posts are even being made by prominent politicians. Do you have a moral obligation to flag or remove this false information? Do you have a free-speech obligation to allow users to freely voice their views even if they are spreading misinformation? What should you do as a the owner of this social media platform?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Free Resources
The Bad Fathers of Confucius and Plato
There is a son who prides himself upon being honest and just in all things. However, their father is a scoundrel. This time, the son caught the father stealing sheep from a local farmer. What is the ethical and just thing for the son to do?
Should he turn in the father for breaking the law and stealing from the local farmer? Or does he have an ethical obligation to the father to keep silent about his crimes?
Also consider these questions… which would be better, a nation where sons and daughters protect their parents or a nation in which they alerted the authorities when they stray? And does the severity of the crime matter as you consider the question?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Interestingly, this problem was wrestled independently (though with somewhat different scenarios) by both Plato in the dialogue "Euthyphro" and Confucius in the "Analects".
Free Resources
Library Resources
Colonized Land Problem
There was a country invaded by a more technologically advanced population. The Invaders conquered this country and took the land and resources from the Original Population that lived there. For several decades, the Invaders continued to control the country and established a government ruled by a small minority of them, while the majority Original Population remained oppressed. Eventually, due to mounting international pressure and internal unrest, the tyrannical government was replaced with a democracy, allowing the Original Population to elect representatives that fought for their interests. After this democracy was established, it was discovered that the small minority Invader population still owned the vast majority of the land and resources in the country. What should the country do? Should they redistribute the land, taken unjustly, back to the Original Population? If so, should they reimburse the Invader owners for the land they take-- many of whom were born after the period of unjust rule? Or does the minority Invader population have a right to the land in which they claim ownership?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Free Resources
Library Resources
A mad scientist invents a machine that would allow you to live in a personalized simulation, similar to a video game or the Matrix. The scientist can guarantee that you will be happy in this machine as it caters to your every whim and fantasy, and while you are in the machine, you won't even know it is a simulation. All that said, every person and thing you encounter within the machine is simply a programmed simulation and nothing and no one you encounter will be real. The catch is this... if you choose to live in the simulation, you can never go back to the real world. What would you do? Spend the rest of your life where you are happy in a fantasy world? Or choose to live your life in the real world? Why?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Free Resources
Library Resources
Lupu's Every Rule Has an Exception...
This comes from GCC Philosophy Faculty Peter Lupu...
Consider the statement “Every rule has an exception.” While this rule appears on the surface to be harmless enough, it is in reality paradoxical. Let us unpack the paradoxical character of this rule (R). Suppose that the rule (R) is true. Then, due to the generality of (R), it must apply to every rule including itself. But now consider what it would mean for (R) to apply to itself. It means that (R) has at least one exception. Suppose that this is so. But in order for (R) to have at least one exception there must be at least one rule which has no exceptions. (Incidentally, for the logic to work we do not need to spell out the exceptionless rule). But, now, as you can see, if there is at least one exceptionless rule, then (R) itself is false; for after all (R) is completely general. Therefore, since there must be at least one exceptionless rule, (R) is false. But, remember, we started this line of reasoning by entertaining the possibility that (R) is true. And we arrived at the conclusion that if (R) is true, then it is false. Therefore, if (R) is true, then it is false. But, surely, if we begin with the contrary assumption; namely, that (R) is false, then we right away conclude that (R) is false. Therefore, (R) is false (as stated) regardless of whether we begin with the assumption that it is true or false.
Given all this, do you think that "Every rule has an exception"?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Free Resources
Library Resources
The Drowning Child (Peter Singer)
A man wearing a thousand dollar suit sees a child drowning in the ocean and being pulled away by the currents. He doesn't have time to take off his suit and save the child. Is the man morally obligated to jump in the ocean and ruin his suit to save the drowning child?
Now, if you answered "yes" to that first question, consider this... A person is up late watching television, and an ad comes on stating that with a $1000 dollar donation, you can save a child's life in a poverty stricken village recently ravaged by floods. The person researches the charity and it appears to be legit. Is this person morally obligated to donate $1000 to save the child in a poverty stricken village if they have the money to do so? If not, how are the two examples different?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Free Resources
Library Resources
Bostrom's Simulation
In the future, it might be possible to create simulated realities as real as the actual reality we live in now. But do we live in an actual reality? Consider this… what if this theoretical future has already happened and the people of this future created the simulation already—one you are living in right now. Given the vastness of our current reality, it might be theoretically possible that a number of civilizations have already reached this state of simulation capability making it potentially more likely that we live in a simulation rather than a “reality”.
Do you think our reality is “real” or a simulation? And would this change the way you live your life?
Take our Poll!
Sources for Research:
Free Resources
Library Resources
The last merchant vessel of the trading season is bound for home. During their voyage home, the ship encounters an unexpected storm and four of the crew members are thrown overboard and assumed drowned. Later though, these crew members all wash to the shore of an island in which crews frequently make pit stops during the trading season. Alongside the crew, several crates of food and other supplies, also thrown overboard, wash up beside them. After taking an inventory of the crates, it is discovered that only enough food exists for three of the crew to survive until the next trading season when help will finally arrive back at the island. If they attempt to stretch out the food for all four of them, every one of them will surely die. Should the crew accept the fact that one should die to save all four or hope for an unlikely miracle? If the crew decides to accept this fact... How should the crew decide who dies? Should it be upon age, merit, or some other factor? Or should they draw straws to make it random? Finally, if the person selected to die attempts to fight the other three or steal their food, would the three be justified in killing the condemned man? And would the condemned man be justified in fighting back against his would-be murderers?
Sources for Research:
A terrible pandemic is raging across the globe. A vaccine has finally been developed. However, production of this vaccine is slow and it will be some time before there are enough vaccines for everyone. However, each week new vaccines become available for distribution. In this scenario, you are in charge of distributing vaccines for your country. What is the most ethical approach to vaccine distribution in your country where there are not initially enough vaccines for everyone? How do you prioritize who will get the vaccine first? What factors do you consider and which do you not? How will you work to ensure vaccine distribution is fair, equitable, and reaches the maximum amount of people?
Sources for Research:
You are an independent scientist doing some research on the process of aging. During your research, you discover a means to create a pill capable of preventing aging for anyone who takes it. Moreover, those that take the pill grow physically no older than 25, and if they are older than that when they take the pill, it will revert the person to the physical body of a 25 year old. If you are not killed or do not die in accident, you will be effectively immortal. What do you do? Would you take it yourself? Would you destroy it? Would you make it available to others? If so, everyone or just a select few? Would it be ethical to make a profit off of it? Consider ethical, religious, societal, and ecological factors in your answer.
Sources for Research:
Zeno's Traveler
You spot a traveler on the side of the road, distressed and unmoving. You ask him what is wrong? They tell you the following….
“I fear I will never reach my destination. I have already travelled half-way. If I continue moving, I will travel half of the remaining distance, then half of that distance, then half of that, and so on for infinity—never actually reaching my distance but getting half-way there forever.”
What do you tell this traveler?
Sources for Research:
You are not religious. However, you meet a local priest who says you should be. His argument is as follows: "If you are a believer in God, and God exists, you will go to heaven. If you do not believe, you risk the possibly going to hell. Your earthly life is rather short. At the most, you will live a century. However, the afterlife is long, an eternity in fact. Therefore, you might as well invest your short earthly life as a believer, because if there is no God, you don't lose much time, but if there is a God, you gain an eternity in heaven." Is the priest's gamble worth it? Does it convince you to become a believer?
Sources for Research:
Donaldson's Equim
Equim is a world in which everyone is completed impartial. In Equim, everyone treats everyone else with equal concern. Therefore, if a parent had the choice of saving their child or another child from drowning, they would make an impartial decision, possibly flipping a coin or simply choosing the child that is closest. For the purpose of this thought experiment, let us say that the world of Equim is happier than our society, both on a societal level and an individual level. If you could give the people of Equim a pill to make them more like the people of Earth, would or should you? Contrarily, would or should you give a pill to make the people of Earth more like the people of Equim?
Sources for Research:
"Consider for example the proceedings that we call “games.” I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all?—Don’t say: “There must be something common, or they would not be called games’ ”—but look and see whether there is anything common to all.—For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat:don’t think, but look!—Look for example at board games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball-games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost.—Are they all “amusing”? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball-games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through the many, many other groups of games int he same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear." -(From What if... Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy) Given this analysis, is there such a thing as a "game"? What does this say about language and its ability to convey meaning?
Sources for Research:
You are an astronaut traveling to distant worlds and cataloging whatever life you find on these distant planets. That said, you discover a planet with a wide variety of flora and fauna. You have a responsibility to catalog those species either as an advanced "people-like" species with full moral rights and protections, a mid-level species that should be protected from destruction but not placed at the level of "people", or as species that can be used as resources and food. How do you make this decision? Upon what qualities do you base this decision upon?
Earthly Variation: Is it ethical to eat all non-human species (plants, animals, etc.) on earth? If so, how is this behavior justified? If not, upon which criteria would you base the eating of one species over another?
Sources for Research:
Imagine yourself alone in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the door. You do not understand Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating symbols and numerals just as a computer does, you send appropriate strings of Chinese characters back out under the door, and this leads those outside to mistakenly suppose there is a Chinese speaker in the room. (Thought Experiment taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Does the person in the room along with the computer program understand Chinese?
This thought experiment is a metaphor for Artificial Intelligence. Given this example, do you think it is possible for an Artificial Intelligence to be conscious and aware of their actions if they are simply following a computer program?
Sources for Research:
Think of the world as a series of causes and effects, with one thing causing another thing, which in turn causes something else, which in turn causes yet another thing. Similarly, you can look at the universe as a series of causes and effects. However, if you go all the way back, you seem to come to a first thing, which itself has no cause. What was this first thing, this effect that has no cause, this mover of things who has itself never been moved? Is it God? And how does the universe exists?
Sources for Research:
"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past." -- From What if... Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy
Do you agree with this statement? Is any knowledge possible? Can our sense experiences and memories be trusted to find truth?
Sources for Research:
All guides are available under the CC-BY-NC-SA license.
