contrivance: a thing that is created skillfully and inventively to serve a particular purpose.
To accuse the situations presented in any story as being mere contrivances of the author, is accusing them of being part of a story. You might as well proudly walk up to Grumpy Cat and go “Hah, you’re a feline!” All stories are contrivance, including Lord of the Rings, and Little Brother–worlds created deliberately for conflict.
I think Doctorow can’t appreciate the moral hazard genre because it doesn’t align with what he values in science fiction. Godwin wasn’t writing design fiction. He created that particular universe, and set events in motion, to explain how humans can come to the reluctant conclusion that they must do something awful.
It may be true that Godwin leaves loads of unanswered questions–this isn’t “design fiction” after all and a detailed description of every policy, procedure, and engineering detail would fast bore the reader. However you do him a disservice when you dismiss the situation presented as mere contrivance. The moral of such tales is generally that stuff happens, and things break in the right circumstances–even if they’re ethical constructs.
History has shown that is that people will do distasteful, awful, and horrible things given the right set of circumstances. Godwin is simply pointing out that people will retain that capacity in the future.
This sort of story is not there to provide convenient ideological fodder for wannabe lifeboat captains. Rather they are cautions against getting ourselves into positions where “lifeboat rules” are a real necessity. They are the futurist equivalent to a shop teacher graphically describing what can happen if your clothes get caught in an engine lathe.
