Here’s how the model changed my view on the argument:
Like many of us I came across this thought experiment ages ago in undergrad. At that point I think the fact that it was an argument that helped the pro-choice movement caused me to be less critical of it than I ought to have been. Also, at that point I was in a much worse position to evaluate any philosophical argument than I am today.
Especially in the last six years I felt less and less sure of my position because I do think our obligations to each other and our community certainly gives us some obligations to the violinist. But, still every time I taught the case I tend to think the argument basically works. So, until very recently I thought staying was supererogatory
This semester that changed because of the model. I think I held onto my earlier view simply because of the phenomenon of belief persistence. By seeing the model the argument was presented to me in a different way than I normally conceived of it. I think the novel presentation caused me to see it as a new problem so it weakened the belief persistence that made me resistant to change my view. While this summer semester I thought the argument worked, this semester I don’t. The change came I think from how the model helped break through biases of belief persistence.
For me, at least, when I spend time concentrating on different models from the Make Philosophy project they always cause different psychological responses to the cases than when not thinking through the model. I been spending a lot of time this semester thinking of the psychological differences between thinking of the cases with and without physical models.