You're thinking of Carol Gilligan's criticism of Kohlberg's stages of moral development and, I think, propounding an "ethics of care" over an "ethics of justice." :-)
I can't argue that you need to have all the information vital to making a complete and informed decision. But I think the point of these thought experiments is to figure out what the myriad responsibilities and obligations we feel ARE, by constructing scenarios that differ in only one aspect (e.g. do you kill the person by commission or omission) and reflecting on whether that changes our reaction. If we only thought about ethics in context -- if we always knew who the one person was, and who the five people are -- then we'd never know if we made that decision because we discriminate between acts of commission and acts of omission, or just 'cause we liked one group of people better than the other.
I do accept the point of view that ethics can't be considered out of context, though.
(Is it then fair to set up a scenario in which you can't possibly know the identities of the six? Because there surely are situations when an ethical decision has to be made without knowing all of those non-extra pieces of information. As, say, when a government's actions may make a difference between one Israeli dying or five Palestinians. Or do you think the decision can't be made without a full dossier on each individual involved?)
On a more humorous note, I think you would enjoy this thought experiment, which combines every thought experiment I've ever heard and then some. ;-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-07-31 05:33 pm (UTC)I can't argue that you need to have all the information vital to making a complete and informed decision. But I think the point of these thought experiments is to figure out what the myriad responsibilities and obligations we feel ARE, by constructing scenarios that differ in only one aspect (e.g. do you kill the person by commission or omission) and reflecting on whether that changes our reaction. If we only thought about ethics in context -- if we always knew who the one person was, and who the five people are -- then we'd never know if we made that decision because we discriminate between acts of commission and acts of omission, or just 'cause we liked one group of people better than the other.
I do accept the point of view that ethics can't be considered out of context, though.
(Is it then fair to set up a scenario in which you can't possibly know the identities of the six? Because there surely are situations when an ethical decision has to be made without knowing all of those non-extra pieces of information. As, say, when a government's actions may make a difference between one Israeli dying or five Palestinians. Or do you think the decision can't be made without a full dossier on each individual involved?)
On a more humorous note, I think you would enjoy this thought experiment, which combines every thought experiment I've ever heard and then some. ;-)