Normative Case Studies and Thought Experiments: How They Differ and Why We Need Both

Abstract Thought experiments and normative case studies can play different and complementary roles in moral and political philosophizing. Thought experiments help us to sculpt and refine normative concepts and alert us to contradictions between intuitive judgments and basic principles, or among intuitive judgments, thus informing our reflective equilibrium about what fundamentally matters. Normative case studies assist us in judging how to trade off conflicting values in specified circumstances. Engaging with a sufficient number of well‐wrought normative case studies can thus inform our ultimate judgments about the relative weights of different values.