Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Mind
-
How to Enjoy Your Decision
5/22/13 -
Inside the Mind of a Psychopath
5/14/13
Would you kill one person to save five others?
Philosophers have posed this moral dilemma for decades. Typically they present the situation as a mental exercise. A runaway train is about to strike five people walking along the track. You can reroute the train and save the five people. But you will wind up killing one person walking on the other track.
Recently, researchers tried to make the dilemma feel much more real. They placed 147 subjects in a 3-D virtual environment where they are in front of a railroad switch controlling two tracks. They watch five people hike along a track bordered by a ravine. A single person hikes along the other track. Suddenly a train comes barreling toward the five people. The subject has the option to reroute the train using a joystick.
Ninety percent of the study subjects switched tracks, killing the lone hiker to save five. These findings match past studies that were only abstract thought experiments. The study is in the journal Emotion.
It appears that even in very realistic, action oriented situations, people will go through with a Sophie’s Choice, motivated by accomplishing the apparently greater good.
—Christie NIcholson
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
77 Comments
Add CommentIt seems to me five adult strangers versus one adult stranger is more a matter of math than an ethical dilemma. If you made the one person on the track into a small child or a loved one, it would be much more of a dilemma.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a lot of factors deciding how a person would react in a non-simulated scenario. As stated by kwnewton, who the people were and their closeness to the individual might be a factor. Another factor would be "how many people were watching?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf 500 people are near the switch, the bystander effect might kick in and the person might do nothing, thinking that someone else will step in to bear the brunt of guilt and responsibility for their deaths. If nobody is watching, the savior/murderer in question might be forced to throw the switch.
It gets much more interesting when the conditions are changed from flicking a switch to change tracks to pushing someone in front of the train to stop it. Though the relative numbers are the same, kill one to save five, most people are much less likely to choose this option even though they know that a larger number of folks will be killed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hiker was carrying a rare plant he had found during his field work......it may have cured cancer. The five people were street thugs waiting to tag and vandalize the train as it passed. Hmmm? This is not now, nor has it ever been science. This asking an individual to make a knee jerk decision without any idea of the variables or consequences. In addition, it is still a video game mentality whereby we can make these choices without consequence. Pap!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother common variation that highlights our moral inconsistencies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are five people awaiting life saving operations. Each requires an organ transplant, heart, liver, kidney, lung and pancreas. Doctors predict that if given a suitable donor organ they will all go on to live healthy lives.
Another patient who has been with a minor injury is being treated in accident and emergency. By chance this patient is a correct organ donor match match for each of the five dying patients. Do you sacrifice the one patient in order to save the five?
Everyone must have thought it... "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few." Or in this case the one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would find myself having to make a split second decision - was the single person on one track more attractive than all five of the persons on the other track? Then I would make my choice accordingly. Attractiveness wins out always. It's an imperative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the two examples are quite different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is extremely important to a society for individuals to feel as if they are valued, and that changes the ethical calculations.
In the hospital example, it is important to society that people feel safe going to the hospital without the threat that they'll be vivisected for spare parts. So the ethical consideration is not just one for five, but also how the treatment of that one affects the rest of society Perhaps generating that fear of hospitals is much more damaging to us all than letting the five die.
A similar consideration is not an issue on the train track.
Also if you change the train scenario to having to push someone, rather than throwing a switch, you change the calculation again. If you could push someone, could you not also jump in yourself? That adds a new layer of complexity to the decsion. Also, society benefits if people have added reluctance to directly physically harm people. Even if the result is the same pushing someone in front of the train as pulling a lever, society is better off if people hesitate to directly physically harm others, even if in the local case it might be better, in the macro sense, perhaps it isn't.
Many of these examples fall down when you remove them from the society (bigger picture) in which they are developed and in which they are meant to work.
I've heard this dilemma posed many a time and wondered why a third choice is never offered: (3) You do nothing, and afterward, if anyone asks you why you did nothing, you say you didn't notice the calamity about to happen and therefore cannot possibly be blamed for the outcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a choice lot of people seem to make in this day and age.
To make the problem applicable to our global condition:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswould you kill one billion people to save five billion?
Still questionable about how accurately a video game replicates real human choices. I've killed a rather large number of virtual people and didn't need the insentive of saving many others to convince me to do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent point, invalidating the results of this study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho cares how many worlds are destroyed to prevent the mussing of your hair, or whatever?
Where's the "Like" button?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf they are walking on railroad tracks and not paying attention, then they deserve to die. Maybe the person on that other set of tracks new they were disabled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurely personal responsibility should come into this... if you are walking on a train track there is going to be a risk of trains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis isn't killing one to save five: Its killing the fewest number possible in an unavoidable situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOtherwise, killing one person randomly to harvest their organs to save half a dozen would make sense.
I cannot deal with this as that the subjects are neither deaf nor drunk and should be aware they are vulnerable to an oncoming train and they should certainly here it. No switch here, the subjects will get themselves out of the way and will remove themselves from danger in time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds like the dilemma from the end of "The Watchmen". If you could simulate an invasion from another planet, killing 10 million in the process, but uniting humanity and stopping all wars saving 6 billion, would you do it? And if you knew the invasion was a hoax, and that prosecuting the person who carried it out and killed 10 million would undo all the good, would you prosecute them anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdang, not here, hear!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdo people even read these responses? Anyways, there are so many factors at work here they could spend a lifetime of PHd's researching it. A sacrifice of 5 for 1 is fine. A sacrifice of a billion for 5 billion isn't. Why? Because you are taking the life of 1 billion people. That is morally reprehensible. The measure of one life can be thought of in the mind. The ending of a billion cannot. It's not even a remotely accurate comparison. To me the question is not able to be answered because it is a question of moral relativism. The question asked is a reflection of our society, not the reflection of some absolute "truth." We as humans want an absolute truth, but it does not exist. What we strive for from a moral standpoint is the function of society and it's laws. Why? To propagate our DNA. Can you imagine life 50k years ago? Can you imagine life 50K in the future? Maybe in 50K years somebody will figure out DNA and where it came from and why it drives every species to produce copies of it. Is it not odd that smallest bacteria to president of the US has an uncontrollable desire to pass on our DNA. We are so high minded in our religion, and our politics, and our beliefs, and yet are we not all subject to the propagation of one complex strand of molecules? Society is a construct for a complex piece of chemical information to be passed on to succeeding generations. We fight for life , love, and the pursuit of happiness, but we do it because the protection of those rights increases the chance that our DNA will be passed on successfully. There is no other compelling reason for religion or society. Grain, agriculture, writing, mathematics?? Propagation of a species by passing on DNA. Every human advancement over hundreds of thousands of years was designed, and has, finally brought us to the point that we "rule" creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would yell, "get off the f*cking track!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess yelling or others instance of communication would be out of the question...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would send the train towards the group. In terms of evolution, groups are generally more geared towards survival. I think it'd just be cruelly unfair to off the loner like some sacrifice for the "greater good".
Or is that breaking the rules as well?
I was thinking the same thing! That kind of cold logic reminds me of Ultron, Mr. Save-humans-from-themselves-by-killing-them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of this is only common sense...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you really need a study to tell you this.
Any 5 yr old child would make the same choice.
And they say that the problem here in america is we
need more scientists and engineers.?????????????
A patient would not be killed even if his organs would save several others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what if he is a dangerous criminal who has been injured while committing a serious crime?
Legally, he could not be killed. But morally, should he be?
"To make the problem applicable to our global condition:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswould you kill one billion people to save five billion?"
I think the numbers will probably be opposite, kill 5 to save 1. That will be a dilemma if nature doesn't do the dirty work for us.
OK, forget the train, that isn't the point of this, 1 vs 5 is. You don' get to know if they are gang bangers who just raped and killed a 14 year old, you have to assume they are all equal. From a religious standpoint it doesn't matter if it is one or 1 billion, you still go to hell (unless you are Catholic and ask forgiveness). To me it isn't about killing 5 people,it is the 4 fewer families who will have to grieve, hurt, etc. Dead people don't give a damn if they are dead (Romney and his group aside). If you are a Catholic Bishop, you have already played this out in a manner-http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/12/15/20101215phoenix-bishop-st-josephs-hospital.html. So if you are Catholic, always choose to allow someone to die rather than killing some one and your conscious is clear (which I guess means don't do a thing).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, after allowing the five to be trampled by the train for equity's sake and general principles sake and to keep the "equation" balanced I would feel compelled to run over and smack the lone stroller in the head with a nearby hard, heavy blunt-force instrument resulting in the final death toll tally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes that make me a bad person?
My politically correct indoctrination does not provide adequate guidance with this affair.
Diversity is our strength.
Accept me or don the "jacket" of "bigotry."
Agreed - I think there's around 5 billion people living in cities near seashores now. If global warming, for example, inundates their housing, transportation, sewers and potable water supply infrastructure, etc., how will the requirements of refugees be met by the remaining populace? We all may be facing some tough survival issues before too long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith regard to ethical-moral decisions that do not have a bright line solution, individual choices reflect individual ethical and moral norms rather than absolute affirmations or negations of commonly accepted norms. There should be toleration and acceptance of these individual choices, therefore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the game of chess, you can defend by: 1. Moving a way from a threat; 2. Destroying a threat; 3. Putting a piece in the way of a threat; and/or 4. Guarding the threatened piece or position against the threat.
The suppositions and postulations of ethical dilemma in question should logically be addressed using these same chess strategies.
What's interesting is the situation guides our response more than the outcome - being morally inconsistent in a Math's sense (numbers of deaths 5vs1).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother version (the bbc did this as couple years back).
Your standing on a bridge and can see a train hurtling toward five people who will be killed. There's a guy sitting on the bridge next to you, if you shove him off in front of the train it will stop in time to save the other five - would you?
When asked to flick a switch to change tracks most people did it in the study (somehow it distances them from the event), but when it comes to doing it up close. Well no one would push a guy off the bridge.
It appears the 5 vs 1 isn't what drives us to make the choice - its more dependent on the social setting, laws, customs etc.
As thariss has pointed out, this is a simplistic question with little reality to it. When you look at the bigger picture and most people, evalue is probably correct: most people will do nothing, not throw the switch to save 5, since it was not their responsibility in the first place. jtdwyer has posed the real question driving the global warming hoax, Gates' seed bank, population control, etc., would you kill or impoverish billions (thereby killing billions) so that a few hundred million could keep the world in statis. Evolution only proceeds rapidly after massive die-offs. Every species has gone extinct eventually. Can man survive alone? Who will decide who lives and who reproduces. Are larger numbers better than better lives? 1 versus 5 is a school boy's puzzel, hardly worthy of extrapolation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study attempts to remove all other factors by telling the participants it is a split second decision - they have to read the question and answer instinctively / immediately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy simplifying the conditions it makes it possible or easier to make comparative situations and compare responses.
What you should be studying is the pee-poor definition of "REAL" you are trying to use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let me get this straight - you put people in a Video Game, where we all all taught that no matter who you slaughter, no matter what horrible actions you commit, any time you choose you simply reload an older save and everything is back to normal. What in the name of creation is "real" about a video game?
ALL this proves is that we all so stupid as a species that we readily accept the killing of either one or five people.
Personally and realistically I would have done neither - I would have thrown the switch after the engine had passed and before the cars had passed the switch, thereby derailing the train and killing the train personnel. Same outcome, you GET DEAD PEOPLE, but the innocent hikers are spared and your evil train operators paid the price of unrealistic philosophical pap.
There are hardly ever ONLY TWO CHOICES in life - you just can't get a good video game study using more than two.
THINK about it - in real life, there would be unlimited choices of reactions; I assert that in a REAL situation, the critical moment would have passed before 90% of people even figured out what a railroad switch looks like, what it does, and how it operates.
This study proves only one thing: you can still get funding for crap.
This scenario is similar to the one I heard in elementary school. “If your mother and father were drowning and you could only save one, which one would you save” I’ve always thought these types ethical dilemmas are a bit ridiculous. They do not represent true reality. Even if either of these scenarios could actually be setup in a real situation, people will make different choices for different reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, there are so many variables and “what ifs” that will always come into play when one is in a real life dilemma. And as evalue has said, “...you do nothing...” is another choice. Truth be said, in reality there are so many more choices. But, lets take that third choice for a moment. I’m sure there are more, but, I can think of 3 reasons for this choice. 1. The person simple freezes. Because, for some, it is extremely difficult to make such a choice. 2. Another person might do nothing, because He or She believes that fate will depict the outcome. 3. Another person may just not care enough to do anything.
It is not mentioned in the exercise whether anyone is on the train. Say for example, it is a runaway train with noone on board. This would present a new perspective to how one would decide. One could through the switch back and forth in hopes of derailing the train, hence saving everyone.....Happy ending!! However, I don’t think that’s the point of the exercise.
OK, for the sake of argument. Lets say that this scenario is a real possibility. There I am at the switch, and here comes the train. My choice is....I will do everything in my power to harm noone. Unfortunately, this choice has a very low success rate. Someone will probably die. However, the probability of this almost always inevitable outcome will not sway me from making the same decision if faced with this scenario again. Why? Because for me, I must try. I know I may not succeed. But, then again I might. It is this hope of success that drives my motive. In my mind, the choice to not choose who lives or dies, but trying to save everyone is the correct ethical decision, whether I’m successful or not. In the end, I must still deal with the circumstances of my decision. Which, I assume is the purpose of the exercise.
The different options represent two types of philosophies. One is utilitarianism, the other is categorical morality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA simplistic question for school children. All of the above responses, save Dolmance, have more realistic, practical questions/answers/points of view than the article's author
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The measure of one life can be thought of in the mind. The ending of a billion cannot." This is very true, and this is why I am hypothesizing that people would sacrifice one million to save five million more easily than they would sacrifice one to save five, in a direct killing situation analogous to pushing the man off the footbridge in the trolley dilemma, for my undergraduate psychology thesis. Josh Greene's dual process theory suggests that in direct killing scenarios, emotional reasoning takes over and overrides utilitarian calculations of numbers of lives saved. Meanwhile, work on apathy towards genocide shows that our emotional reactions are blunted by higher numbers of deaths. So it could be that the emotional side of the dual process is cancelled out for a million or a billion people, and more people would happily do the utilitarian calculation. On the other hand, it could be that saving 5 million or 5 billion does not evoke the emotional value and would counteract this, as well. I'll find out soon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a mother is expecting quintuplets, her life is in danger, I would happily abort the lot and save the mother. The foetuses are not individual living creatures, no child is human till it develops a sence of individuality and self awareness, some children never do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a world of over 7G, if everyone wants to live the American inspired lifestyle. Our planet can support no more than 1.5G. Revert to the Chinese lifestyle of the 19th century, yes we can become much smaller and the planet can support up-to 9G.
If one switches tracks, he becomes guilty of murder. Maybe even first degree murder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are a life form like any other. There is nothing we do that is right or wrong. We all act, thinking makes things right and wrong, based on our upbringing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Canada a man kills his entire family after starting a new one, claims he has done nothing wrong and he had the right to do it, since in his opinion they were acting immorally. Its is Islamic upbringing that makes him believe so.
Well they are dead and he will hopefully be held in detention till he dies (I don't think so-costs money), but not punished according to his ideas of punishment. He also knows his current family will visit him, he will have conjugal rights and a lot more. Like it or not, he wins.
There is no purpose to life, we live, we die. We cease to exist. Experience tells me those who act selfishly and unethically attain more things than the rest.
The reasons behind the possible different choices between this scenario and "you shove 1 off to save 5" situation might shed some light on this argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho would feel less guilty after their choices? The one who choose to reroute the car, killing one to save five, or the one who shove 1 off, thereby actively getting himself involved in the dilemma?
"There is no purpose to life, we live, we die."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe existentialist philosopher Sartre would say life is what you make it. If you say there is no purpose to life, then there is none for you.
"Experience tells me those who act selfishly and unethically attain more things than the rest."
Selfish and unethical do not always go together. Selfishness is an evolved behavior to protect oneself. But it is not true that selfishness is always a superior strategy for survival.
A cooperative group has better chances of survival than a selfish individual on his own. That's why prehistoric men formed tribes and lived in communities. Civilization is the product of cooperation among individuals.
When a pacifist monk was asked what he would do if he were to witness an act of violence against a small child, then, what would he do. He replied, "I don't know, I only hope that what I have learned in life will cause me to make the correct choice." Our answers, and actions are developed in life's lessons. I would hope that my answer/action would be the correct choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't the real question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What does it mean if the person chose to save the 1 person over the 5?"
All it would take is for the one person to miss seeing the train to be hit, while ALL 5 of the other people would all have to miss seeing the train for any of them to be hit. So the most logical (and statistically best) answer is to send the train towards the 5 knowing at least one of them would see and inform the others, thus saving all 6 lives.
Yet doing so would no doubt have people immediately consider you as somehow "defective" or "bad" simply because they failed to see the true logic behind the situation.
So the real study becomes the perception and judgement of others based on how they view the situation. The value of 5 lives is never as simple as their intrinsic values, probabilities must also be taken into consideration, where the greatest probabilty for success (or the least chance of failure) is the more prudent answer.
I have read Sartre in my youth, admired him and his beliefs. I like his ideas, but dig deep you find life is about nothing. You may create purpose for yourself, but analyse your purpose, its nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the tail end of my life, I realise that the species I am part of is coming to an early end, it does not bother me, I am glad. Perhaps this is true of any species that begins to think and modify its biosphere.
Malthus was the first to inform us of our population problem. We chose to try and prove him wrong, using technology to overcome biosphere balance, in the short term it worked, now its worse than "banks too big to fail". Our numbers are at the expense of the rest of the mega-species. Its also resulted in the dilution of the percentage level of educated people in the world, since breeding is almost exclusively the domain of the ignorant.
Your second point: We chose to live in tribes, that involves sharing. Yes and initially the strongest ruled, however the strongest do not last long and we have rapid replacement of the leader. Dreaming changed that. Children awake screaming from a nightmare, along comes a selfish individual who conjures up a devil and claims he can control this creature. Tribal control passed on from the strongest to fear-mongers and we get tribal religions. Read Carl Sagan's "The Daemon-Haunted World" to know what religion did to members of our species. I especially recommend you to read about how Catholic priests got themselves the prettiest girls in their area by claiming they were witches. This puts the lie to religions claim that it provides ethics and a moral compass. Tribes serves the selfish needs of the leader, the rest are slaves.
True. or what if the one is a doctor? Cancer researcher? What if the five are criminals being moved to another location? How many would plow the five?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, what would you do if that ONE person was your son?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be realistic about your belief that life is purposeless, why are you still alive? It's a waste of time. You should have ended it a long time ago. Nihilism is a nice philosophical argument but the mere fact that we live only proves we don't actually take it seriously. (those who did are already dead)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't share your doomsday prophesy, and I don't believe Malthus. So far he's wrong.
We no longer live in the Stone Age. Tribes became democracies. Religions lost their authority since the Enlightenment Age. If you read Carl Sagan, why are you so pessimistic? Sagan said knowledge is our destiny. He never said it's futile, mass suicide is the only solution.
And nobody is wondering if the train might be able to stop before hitting anyone!? :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgree with tharris. Different situations. This is a situation that requires immediacy. This is not a moral action. And if moral action decision (at leisure) then power is the main definer. For an example of discriminate use of power see my knol: http://knol.google.com/k/kathleen-sisco/never-to-be-published/2cg23zl4o17qt/56
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just a thought experiment and doesn't tell us much, I'm afraid. Using a more "realistic" simulation doesn't get us further along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually it does tell us quite a lot. It allows us to get an insight into how the decision making process may change given a change in circumstances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can see that factors such as:
- how much time we have to decide
- who the people are
- how we feel about making a choice that could harm
- what weighting we give to people
As we change the variables, it also changes the decisions we make. So ultimately it allows us a better understanding of who we are as people.
What I find most interesting is people seem to ignore the fact that "no action" is an action in itself. They believe taking no action alleviates them of responsibilty and guilt which isn't true, yet humans are able to justify themselves in this way.
To me that is invaluable and explains why people stand by and let others come to harm
Seems unethical to throw the switch, without having knowledge of whom the people are. For all you know, the 5 on the track are expecting the train - while the other is an innocent civilian.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are certain it is just numbers, and there are 500 people on the train, and you are switching tracks to keep them from ramming another train ... then the choice is math.
In the end, its all game theory. You have to identify the objectives of the switch operator, costs and rewards. Thus the operator has a strategy - based on what he thinks other's strategy will be. aka Nash equilibrium. Read also 'The Selfish Gene'.
It is rare that we have all the facts when making any decision. Still a decision must be made, even if the decision is to do nothing. The question is would one make the same decision given a second chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would think that it would be "counter-productive" to change the tracks. The 5 "doomed" people are on the "wrong" track by their own reasoning & decisions, or lack of these, thereof. The lone person on the "safe" track, on the other hand, is proably there because (s)he deduced - and correctly - that it would be safer to be on that track. Why change the tracks, and "punish" him/her for having made the right decision? Doing so would be against evolution, which dictates that only the "strongest" (today read as: the most clever) should survive, and would in fact foster a "negative selection" where the not-so-fit-to-survive would be allowed to do so - and at the expense of the more-fit-to-survive, to boot!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would say, "You made your choice, now live (or die, as the case may be) by the consequences.."
Simple as that..
The choice is murder or an accident.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe inherent difficulty in the trolley problem may be that in real life, almost anybody will be ever confronted with an actual possibility of deliberately killing somebody, whatever rationalization you may use to made the concept acceptable. Just reading the problem, and making any mental simulation or choice about it, opens in your mind the possibility of killing somebody, even when some, as Wolfman Jack, say that the commandement is " Thou shalt not murder", this being different to "Thou shalt not kill", entering the concept of killing other person as an actual possibility adds nothing but danger and shame to our world and our life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is idiotic. To make this decision one would have to know how the 5x10*9 would be killed. WMD? That would leave the remaining 2x10*9 humans and all other species in jeopardy, since it would effectively cause environmental changes that most species could not tolerate. In this case the answer is clearly NO (although Hitler, in 1945, would have have said YES-Gotterdammerung!).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, if the 5 billion could be killed with no loss to other species and no extreme short-term or long-term ill effects on the environment, it might (temporarily) save the earth from overpopulation, thus saving the lives of the remaining humans and of all other species, and might appeal to some (e.g., environmental extremists). It might also appeal to religious or political fanatics, if they could effect a bias in who was among those killed. So in this case the answer might be YES.
Of course...but that was not the question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question should be seen as: all else being equal, would you throw the switch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of the other criteria being brought up make for different questions. The study (and the original dilemma) were intended only for the most simple of the choices...without any other modifiers.
Let's make this situation a little more realistic. You are in a car near a street fair, and your brakes fail. Your car is headed straight for a small crowd. You can choose to turn the car toward a park where there are few people. Not none, but few. Do you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read in the news about this situation actually happening. I personally think that ANYONE in that situation will try to turn into the park. Are there any exceptions here? Would you be tried for murder if you DIDN'T turn?
During the hi-jacking of planes at the 9/11 terrorist attacks, NO-ONE would take the initiative to down the planes sacrificing the passengers to save thousands in the buildings. The real heroes in the terrorist attacks were the passengers of the plane that crashed in the field. They knew that they were not likely to survive but were not about to let the terrorists crash the plane into the Capitol with certain death to many more. From the documented information obtained in 1995 about "Operation Bojinka" the government should NEVER have allowed the hi-jacked planes to continue their mission. Evidence collected from governments all over the world pointed to the eventuality of these attacks and no one had the cajones to act on this. To quote FDR, "This is a day that will live in infamy" for the innefectual response of our government officials to such threats and imminent action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the situation of pushing someone in front of the train to stop it, I would never do that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, the people might see the train and jump out of the way, in which case the single person's death would be unnecessary.
Second, the single person might not be able stop the train, in which case I have just increased the death toll unnecessarily. It is hard to imagine that a single body would stop a train.
Third, the train might stop or be switched to a different track before it hit the people, in which case the single person's death was likewise unnecessary.
Fourth, the single person may have some other way of saving the people. He or she may be in the process of calling them on his or her cell phone to warn them.
Fifth, you don't know the single person, but you do know yourself. You would be much better off ethically by jumping yourself rather than risking throwing someone else off who did not volunteer to be thrown. (Dead, but ethical.)
"All it would take is for the one person to miss seeing the train to be hit, while ALL 5 of the other people would all have to miss seeing the train for any of them to be hit. So the most logical (and statistically best) answer is to send the train towards the 5 knowing at least one of them would see and inform the others, thus saving all 6 lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Yet doing so would no doubt have people immediately consider you as somehow "defective" or "bad" simply because they failed to see the true logic behind the situation.
"So the real study becomes the perception and judgement of others based on how they view the situation. The value of 5 lives is never as simple as their intrinsic values, probabilities must also be taken into consideration, where the greatest probabilty for success (or the least chance of failure) is the more prudent answer."
Good point. It is never as simple as saying this MUST happen or that MUST happen.
On the other hand, when I made the same calculation I reversed the probabilities. It didn't occur to me that that if even one person in the group saw the train s/he would warn the rest. I thought that the probability of all 5 getting off the tracks in time was lower than the probability of the single person getting off the tracks in time, especially if the group was talking or making noise together making it harder to hear the train. They might also get in each other's way scrambling to get off the tracks.
Specifically for this experimental problem, you don't really have a choice. You either do nothing and kill 5 people (your fault since you did nothing) or you switch the tracks and kill one person, saving 5 people. Either way you're killing someone. Just because you didn't switch the track doesn't mean you didn't kill them. Doing nothing kills people all the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is because of this view, that I would switch the tracks. It would be terrible to be responsible for one death but to be responsible for five would be much worse.
Well, while I concur that what you pose is a dilemma (and it does answer the title of the article), what you pose isn't what they tested for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat they tested for is more aptly called "Would you choose a stranger to die rather than let five others die?" Actively killing someone can be a lot harder for a person than passively allowing five others to die, or being faced with "Someone here HAS to die - pick one of the six or five will die."
I go with the math - if you don't know anything about it, chances are a person will just take the one in order to save five others.
T
In various forms this dilemma arises more often than we think. For example, is it ethical to take more of their own money from a thousand people to give money to a million people. Most people think about this and aren't sure. But when you add that these thousand people are a bunch of white millionaires and the million people are disadvantaged minorities the mind turns off and altruism kicks in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether you sacrifice the smaller number to save the large number very much depends upon who they are. One could say it's a "good" form of bigotry, which confesses that bigotry might not always be bad and that's just too much to deal with.
Some dilemmas really test our premises. Most people will go with whatever perfumes their ego, or rather whatever stinks it up the least, and even this depends in turn upon who's watching.
People that walk on train tracks where they can't get off the tracks quickly are in either of 2 categories; Children that don't yet have logical thought processes and those that need to be hit by a train to improve the gene pool. I'd find a way to send it after the 5 and then reroute to go after the 1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if the subjects of the dilemma were not being intensely stupid my actions would be very different.
Following your train of thought, then why not go on to find a way to get the engineer who wasn't paying attention and then the guy who hired him in the first place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou assume that the people on the tracks have no responsibility. The lone person on the other tracks could have chosen where he was because he knew no train would be traveling there. Then you come along to prove him wrong, and reward the idiots who should have known better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObjectively, you're a dickhead.
There is a legal category called justifiable homicide and it's usually used where killing is done in self-defense or in the defense of others. I have a pretty good idea that killing one to save five would be considered justifiable homicide by any judge or jury.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a liberal was in a quandry about what to do in a case like this the best thing to do would be to kill the one person to save the five and if the guilt was too great to bear he could kill himself rather than make everybody else miserable listening to him posture and whine for the rest of his life.
Make the hypothetical situation real, then give the switch to the lone hiker on the alternate track and see what happens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can kill a person posing direct and imminent threat to you or others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can not kill innocent bystanders in to prevent deaths of other people, no matter how many.
Being in jury I will convict you if you are charged with intentional homicide.
There are at least three different questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) What action is legal n the legal system in the particular country?
2) What action is legal from the point of natural rights, such as right for self-ownership?
3) What action is moral?
1) It will depend on the lawyer's capability of arguing fine points in existing legal code and extracting emotions from the jury.
2) Is very simple and straightforward, and the only answer making any sense.
If you are doing nothing you are not responsible for the deaths. You have right not to act.
If you switch tracks you cause death of the innocent person. Therefore you become a killer. Saving five people (or five thousand or even five billion) does not change it.
You are not God, and you do not have a right to compare lives of different people and choose who lives and who dies.
3) Morality, as usual is a fluid subject. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
Suppose the lonely hiker was walking on his track because he knew he was safe, and the other 5 were risking it because of the thrill. He is then sacrificed for being prudent...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, being different, or thinking different poses a risk, even if your doing the right thing.
For those not strictly analytical... God has determined that these five will die and the lone traveller will survive. see jrtrouch example. This is where the masses fall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this