Trolley Problem Variants


The famous “runaway trolley problem” goes like this: an out of control trolley on tracks is hurtling down towards 5 people and will certainly kill them; would you be OK killing some 6th person to save the five?

Robert Sapolsky in his best-selling book, Behave, analyzes it at length with more and more variations. First, it matters how the scenario is phrased:
1)      If the option is to pull a lever that diverts the trolley onto a different track where the 6th person is standing, 70 to 90% would do it;
2)     But if the option is to push the 6th person physically into the path of the trolley, 70 to 90% would not do it.
As Sapolsky says:
“The same numerical trade-off, but utterly different decisions.”

So is the key difference is that we don’t want to get our hands dirty (literally)? They changed the option from pushing physically to push with a pole. No difference: people were just as reluctant as the push physically option.

Did physical proximity to the “victim” make a difference? Nope, people were willing to push the lever even if it was right next to the 6th person.

Did it matter that the lever option involved collateral damage (the diverted trolley kills the 6th person only because he happened to be in the way. Had he not been there, nobody would have been killed), not deliberate damage as in the case where you pushed him into the way? What if there was no need to kill the 6th person, but lunging towards the lever means you will inevitably push the 6th person onto the way, thereby killing him? About 80% said Yes, they’d do it. So it looks like intentional v/s unintentional harm matters.

What if the diverted track loops back onto the main track where the 5 people are standing? In this case, diverting doesn’t help unless the 6th person is on the diverted track and gets killed. Would you pull the lever? Now it’s intentional, so the numbers should be the same as in the intentional v/s unintentional case, right? Wrong, most people said they’d pull the lever.
“Killing someone intentionally as a means to save five feel intuitively wrong, but the intuition is strongest when the killing would occur right here, right now; doing it in more complicated sequences of intentionality doesn’t feel as bad.”
Sapolsky calls it the “effects of proximity (space and time) on moral intuitionism”.

Ok, so morality is complicated. There are no easy answers at times. No surprise there. But I wonder if this explains why analytical people tend to be atheists? Because they think deeper, consider alternatives, and then find any messiah/guru professed rules of morality always seems to have some exceptions?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Image
As a toddler, my daughter loved Alia Bhatt’s songs, esp. the ones from Student of the Year . (That movie did have many good songs and well-choreographed dances). Fast forward to present day, when she is 12 yo. She rarely watches Hindi movies now, but one of the few ones she likes of late, Raja aur Rani ki Prem Kahani has, yes, Alia Bhatt.   If I had any hopes that there was anything to be read in the name of her toddler-time favorite ( Student of the Year ), they have been dashed. Our conversations come exam time are perfectly captured by this photo and its caption: In fact, the pic below captures how she and I look at her answer sheets – me intently, she with an expression of “It’s over, so why are you even looking at it?”   Of late, we pull her leg and tell her that she isn’t showing any signs of academic prowess, she’d better find a rich guy to marry. Some time later, she showed us this meme on the Internet: “Me No Study, Me No Care Me Go Marry Millionaire If He Die
Read more

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"

Image
Coming up with biting and witty retorts. It’s something we dream of, but rarely manage to pull off. Worse, the more we stew over the offending remark, the more likely we are to come up with that dream retort, as Calvin ruefully points out: During our last holiday at the Taj Resort, seeing my wife carrying towels to our poolside chairs, one of the kids there mistook her for a member of the staff and asked for a towel. When my wife narrated this to us, I did not imagine that my 8 yo daughter would come up with her own retort. But a day later, my daughter recapped the incident, an incident that didn’t even involve her in the first place , and said, “You know what I’d have told that kid who asked for the towel?”. And without waiting for an answer, she told us anyway: “I don’t work here. I too am a luxury person who is living at this resort. Go get your own towel.” We were highly amused by the phrase she had coined: “luxury person”. It certainly captures the kind of holid
Read more

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

Instinctively, we think touch is based on contact. Not entirely true, explains Ed Yong in Immense World – there’s a more important aspect than contact: “These incredible feats are possible through movement. If you rest a fingertip upon a surface, you can get only a limited idea of its features. But as soon you’re allowed to move, everything changes. Hardness becomes apparent with a press. Textures resolve at a stroke.” As you run your fingers over a surface, they hit the tiny peaks and troughs and set off vibrations in the mechanoreceptors at their tips.   At the tip of its snout, the star-nosed mole has many pairs of hairless appendages. It uses them to touch things around itself. Alive or dead? Food or ignore? It does these movements at an insane speed. In the time it takes to blink our eyes, the star-nosed mole can probe, identify and swallow its food. “Light may be the fastest thing in the universe, but light sensors have their limits, and the star-nosed mole’s sense of
Read more