It's constructed to have people evaluate the extremities of their moral convictions. Some philosophers argue that it is never moral to lie or to break a promise. Some argue that it's never moral to torture a person. I reckon the thought experiment is designed to get people to consider whether torture is actually absolutely morally wrong.

What I think the commenter above you was saying is: In reality, how could we become convinced this scenario was unfolding before us. What experiences could a person actually have that would give them adequate confidence in the story to actually decide that it was justified to torture Sally.

Like if a person walked up to you on the street IN REAL LIFE and said:

My name is Sally, and I promised my father not to tell anyone where he had buried an atomic bomb that will kill 1 million people when it explodes in half an hour, but I concede I would be convinced to break my promise through torture.

Would you feel justified in torturing her? What if you were the chief of police? I hope you don't think so, because this is clearly a person having delusions related to some form of a psychotic episode.

Even if she was telling the truth and you did succeed in torturing the information out of her, how quickly could you do it, and how quickly could you act on the information in a way that would save lives?

Actual real world moral reasoning must account for people's skepticism of the premises of the thought experiment.

If we're trying to construct some sort of useful ethical system, it has to accommodate the uncertainty humans have to navigate. This is probably why the classic trolley problem is so divisive. Some people are intuitively accounting for their uncertainty in the premise's stated 'known' outcomes.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're spot on. Uncertainty makes a huge difference, especially in regards to utilitarianism. With certainty of the full outcomes, act utilitarianism is probably the best theory. Unfortunately for act utilitarians, that certainty is impossible, making it a shit theory in practice. That's where virtue, contract, and rule based theories shine. They can balance uncertain outcomes with probable consequences. They will lead to the worse outcome some percentage of the time, but that's life. You can try your best and still lose.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're probably aware of this inherent contradiction by for the sake of any third parties reading:

TotallynotJessica is advocating for virtue, contract, and rule based ethical paradigms based on the hypothesis that they will, in general, more effectively lead to outcomes preferred by utilitarianism.

I think this contradiction is only important to people that are entrenched on one side or the other (or the other, or the other). For people that just want to understand how to make good decisions in their lives it's a bit of a moot point.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

It certainly helps with the annoying parts of ethics. It made it more accessible to know that most past philosophers wasted time chasing the unobtainable and ignoring what is useful.