This article aims to analyze the functioning of thought experiments in ethics. We will demonstrate that although many thought experiments in ethics can be reconstructed as arguments, according to the thesis defended by John Norton, its reconstructed version does not have the same epistemic force. We will argue that the reconstructed versions are not capable of bringing the same type of understanding in relation to thought experiments, which have an explanatory advantage that arguments do not have. Therefore, arguments are not (...) a sufficient condition for solving problems within ethics and also within thought experiments in this area. We will argue that emotions can be one of the non-argumentative factors that can produce negative and positive interference on thought experimenters and thought experiment, which cannot be demonstrated accurately in the reconstructed version. In this way, the reconstructed version is not able to convey an adequate understanding of emotions and other influences. Finally, we will elaborate on two thought experiments that demonstrate the need to use emotions in moral actions based on the criticism produced by Flávio Williges against traditional moral theories. These thought experiments can be reconstructed as arguments, but without giving us the same understanding that thought experiments are capable of. (shrink)

Um dos principais problemas epistemológicos que podem ser encontrados no estudo dos experimentos mentais diz respeito ao critério de escolha entre casos que produzam resultados contraditórios. Que justificação possuímos para escolher entre C e ~C? James Roberto Brown argumenta a favor de um critério de probabilidade, onde se atribui probabilidade aos dois fenômenos e o mais provável de ser verdadeiro é o que aceitamos. John Norton argumenta que experimentos mentais são argumentos, por isso eles podem ser reconstruídos como argumentos. Através (...) desse processo podemos encontrar as falhas na argumentação do experimento e decidir, através de justificação lógica, qual é a conclusão correta. A abordagem de Brown se mostra muito infrutífera por não apresentar como o cálculo de probabilidade deve funcionar, nem como é possível atribuir probabilidades a verdade dos resultados dos experimentos mentais. Por outro lado, para aceitar a resposta de Norton, necessitamos aceitar que experimentos mentais realmente façam uso de argumentos e que isso seja tudo o que podemos dizer sobre eles. Essa estruturação não permite nenhuma outra fonte epistêmica para justificar os resultados dos experimentos metais. (shrink)

Entende-se que os experimentos mentais são dispositivos da imaginação que podem nos fornecer crenças que constituem conhecimento. John D. Norton apresentou uma abordagem que se tornou influente para explicar como os experimentos mentais científicos podem produzir novos conhecimentos so- bre o mundo. Ele afirma que não há nada distintivo nos experimentos men- tais, uma vez que sustenta que eles funcionam exatamente como argumen- tos. Neste artigo, contestamos sua abordagem. Examinamos aspectos essen- ciais de sua abordagem, que envolvem as noções de (...) “argumento” e “inferên- cia” para mostrar que um sujeito que chega a saber algo através da execução ou condução de um experimento mental dificilmente será considerado como tendo efetivamente executado um argumento ou um processo de raciocínio inferencial. (shrink)

Abstract: It is assumed that thought experiments are devices of imagination that can yield us beliefs constituting knowledge. Nevertheless, how thought experiments work to provide positive epistemic status is a controversial matter. One of the main approaches available in the literature to account for thought experiments is the so-called Argument View. Advocates of this view argue that thought experiments have no epistemic significance. They claim that there is not anything distinctive about thought experiments because they work just like arguments. In (...) this paper, we challenge the argument view by presenting several objections that expose its implausibility. Explicitly, we examine fundamental aspects of the view – which involve the notions of “argument” and “inference” – to demonstrate that a thinker who comes to know something through the execution of a thought experiment will hardly be considered as effectively having executed an argument or a process of inferential reasoning. -/- . (shrink)

Games Studies reveals the performative nature of playing a character in a virtual-game-world (Nitsche 2008, p.205; Pearce 2006, p.1; Taylor 2002, p.48). Tbe Player/Character relationship is typically understood in terms of the player’s in-game “presence” (Boellstorff 2008, p.89; Schroeder 2002, p.6). This gives the appearance that living-into a game-world is an all-or- nothing affair: either the player is “present” in the game-world, or they are not. I argue that, in fact, a constitutive phenomenology reveals the Player/Character relationship to be a (...) multi-dimensional matter of empathy. I advance a broadly Schutzian framework, drawing on his 1932 discussions of “face-to-face encounters” and ”historical predecessors,” showing how at- tention to empathy reveals a variety of “presences” that different kinds of Player/Character relationships afford. The central determinants of empathetic affordances which I focus on here are (i) how much players know about a character (especially the character’s past) and (ii) how players learn this information.The purpose of this discussion will be to show that a phenomenological analysis reveals that the relationship between a player and their character is complex, highly variable, and inherently social. Furthermore, it will add to the growing body of scholarship that demonstrates that video games are rich social objects deserving of study. (shrink)