The Trolley Problem and other questions of morality

May

Filed Under (The Internets) by on 21-05-2008

You know that phenomenon where you go your whole life entirely unaware that some concept or word or food even exists? And then, in the course of a single day or a week, you hear that concept/word/food a gazillion times?

Of course you do, everyone does. Some people call it “synchronicity”, which is defined as a “coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully related, conceived in Jungian theory as an explanatory principle on the same order as causality.”

I, however, call it “bullshit”. More specifically, I think it is something people give far too much meaning to when, really, it is probably just plain, old coincidence.

Still, it was a strange act of ~~synchronicity~~ coincidence this week when, on Monday, I listened to two separate podcasts (Radio Lab and How Stuff Works), each of which dealt with the same morality problem I had never, until then, heard of.

It’s called the “Trolley Problem” and, though there are many variations in its details, essentially goes like this:

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who can’t hear the trolley coming. Fortunately, you can flip a switch that will make the trolley veer down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person on that track. Could you flip the switch?”

I know what I would do but what would you do?

There is a variation to this thought experiment:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a footbridge under which it will pass and you can stop it from killing the five people by throwing a large man from the bridge onto the tracks in front of it, killing him to save five. Could you throw him off the bridge?”

Again, what would you do?

These seemingly opposing questions are basically the same. The math, too, is the same. But according to study after study, 90% of respondents say they would flip the switch to save the five men at the expense of one man and 90% say they would NOT throw the large man to his death even if it would save the same five men.

Why is that? Of course, it’s obvious that it has to do with the circumstances surrounding each possibility. The intent of each morality problem is different and one’s actions within that problem are significantly different. But the result is always the same — you save five people, you kill one.

The reason we think differently about these questions is where morality comes in, our sense of right and wrong. It is etched into our brains that killing someone is wrong. But it is also etched into our brains that killing someone to save more people is, while unfortunate, right. Without this ability to weigh the lives of others, we would have never evolved to this point in our civilization.

There was a third morality question asked in the Radio Lab podcast, one which was as uncomfortable to hear as it was to ponder. It is based on the famous story of what a Jewish woman did during World War II and was revisited in the final episode of M*A*S*H. It goes like this:

It’s war time, and you’re hiding in a bunker with 100 people. Enemy soldiers are approaching outside and will be drawn to any sound. If you’re found, you’ll all be killed immediately. Your baby starts to cry loudly and cannot be stopped. Smothering it to death is the only way to silence it, saving the lives of everyone in the bunker. Could you smother your own baby to save the people and yourself?”

What would you do?

PHOTO CREDIT

Share with the Interweb: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Comments

Phil on 21 May, 2008 at 9:24 am #

I have thrown men off of a bridge in front of trolley, even when there were no unsuspecting people in the trolley’s path.

Phil’s last blog post..Judge not, lest Tac judge ye

I know you videotaped it, can’t wait to see it on your blog.

Baby Bien on 21 May, 2008 at 9:27 am #

It also aligns with the ticking bomb theory. Is it ok to torture or kill one man that knows the location of a bomb? We all know what Jack Bauer would do.

Not this season, we don’t.

Go Pats! on 21 May, 2008 at 9:31 am #

I would throw Eli Manning and Derek Jeter in front of the train. That would stop it.

Nah, it would go right under Jeter’s glove. That guy’s got no range.

The Maiden Metallurgist on 21 May, 2008 at 9:31 am #

Oh my god this was way too depressing first thing in the morning; especially when I’m already bummed out about the theoretical moral dilemmas facing me today. The overcrowded lifeboat, Sophie’s Choice, the last episode of Seinfeld…

The Maiden Metallurgist’s last blog post..Where DO You Think We Are, Exactly?

…or if you were neck high in a vat of vomit and someone threw a bag of shit at your face, would you duck? I know, these are tough.

Judy on 21 May, 2008 at 9:31 am #

Morality questions before noon? I may go throw myself off a bridge.

Judy’s last blog post..Shopping With My Peeps or Why I <3 Zappos

You’re right, morality questions are best saved for the evenings.

freckledk on 21 May, 2008 at 9:36 am #

I said no to all three questions. You really never know what you would do if you found yourself in one of those situations, but I believe that I would hope for the best.

You don’t really know when choosing to act (or not) what the actual outcome would be. If you knew that everyone in the room would DEFINITELY die if you didn’t smother your baby (including your baby), you would probably be more likely to do it.

freckledk’s last blog post..Arrrrgh!

That’s the limitation of a thought experiment. If you were actually in that situation, you would think things you’re not allowed to consider when answering these questions.

WiB on 21 May, 2008 at 9:51 am #

Sounds like someone didn’t get a toy in his happy meal.

I kind of get the disparity between 1 and 2; in the first case, you’re killing the guy, but you’re not killing the guy. The average person isn’t so keen on getting his/her hands dirty, as it were.

Which is similar to the third, although in that case the Greater Good is much more clear. Would it help in that case to feel confident that, if the child were older and understood the situation, he/she would certainly have chosen self-sacrifice?

I’d be interested to see the results if the option were added, in each case, to forfeit your own life. I think that the results in 3 would be what you’d expect, but you might get some significant variations in the first two.

WiB’s last blog post..I don’t think it means what they think it means

I gotta tell ya, so far the results have been slightly off from what I expected.

CPO on 21 May, 2008 at 10:08 am #

This is why I hate the “what if” game. It’s also why I never hang around trolley tracks.

CPO’s last blog post..Passing Marks?Getting Beyond Critics in a One-Daily Town

Stay out of SF, then. Also, their baseball team sucks.

I-66 on 21 May, 2008 at 11:00 am #

You’d smother the baby, wouldn’t you Arjewtino? You sick bastard.

I am a sick bastard, but not for that reason. besides, you’re only half-offended, aren’t you?

rs27 on 21 May, 2008 at 12:21 pm #

Was this on the Sixth Sense? Haley joel Osment always has the answers.

rs27’s last blog post..I’m a Sailor Peg and I’ve Lost My Leg

Is there any movie he’s made that hasn’t affected my blogging? I think not.

jess on 21 May, 2008 at 12:34 pm #

If you want to know the brain science of this, scroll down to the ‘Reasoning and Rationalizing’ sub-hed of this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

Moral problems like these are so difficult because we’re not completely rational beings. Our emotions cloud what seems right in a black and white sense. Or clarify? The gray areas in life are ridiculously fascinating and difficult.

The Radio Lab went into the biological aspect of this, which was incredible.

Phil on 21 May, 2008 at 1:01 pm #

Speaking of…what if the baby was Haley Joel Osment? Would this make it harder or easier (knowing now how his acting career has gone in the toilet, I say easier)?

Phil’s last blog post..Judge not, lest Tac judge ye

That’s an entire poll onto itself.

John on 21 May, 2008 at 1:17 pm #

I answered “no” to all of them because I don’t think I would act in any of the situations. Partly I feel like I would be paralyzed, but especially in the first two situations I don’t think I’d want to be an influencing factor in either occurrence. Of course, doing nothing is also affecting the outcome, so I’m not sure what if anything I’ve accomplished. Oh… thought experiments!

John’s last blog post..Congrats David

They can really cause a brain meltdown if you’re not too careful.

Connie on 21 May, 2008 at 1:29 pm #

There’s a very depressing video being passed around Facebook about a guy who runs a train bridge - his son falls into the bridge works and he has to choose to kill his only son by operating the machine, or let the people on the train die.. even the sinners - who were conveniently pointed out at the beginning. WWJD rammed down your throat, with extra tissues. I might sacrifice a stranger to save others, but they’re toast if my kids are in danger.

Connie’s last blog post..Tag the Expat

Again, if it weren’t for that instinct, humanity would have been toast a long time ago.

freckledk on 21 May, 2008 at 2:42 pm #

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/drawbridge.asp

freckledk’s last blog post..Arrrrgh!

Good thing I don’t believe in a higher power.

Except for rain clouds. They’re plotting. I can feel it.

Shannon on 21 May, 2008 at 3:25 pm #

I said yes to all three, I’m a heartless pragmatist. That or I just really can’t stand crying babies.

Shannon’s last blog post..Kindergartener Bjorn?

lacochran on 21 May, 2008 at 3:37 pm #

Can we through the person who came up with The Trolley Problem under the train?

This is especially disturbing given the situation today in Wheaton.

lacochran’s last blog post..Blues Clues News

Lindsay on 21 May, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

Time magazine had a big cover article about all of this a few months ago and included those exact three situations.

Someone still reads Time?

David on 21 May, 2008 at 4:23 pm #

Wow. I was really depressed until I read this: “…or if you were neck high in a vat of vomit and someone threw a bag of shit at your face, would you duck? I know, these are tough.”

Does that make me sick, or just just point out my horrible attention span?

Rory on 22 May, 2008 at 5:47 pm #

1. Yes definitely flip that switch.
2. Throw the fat man from the bridge!
3. No one could kill their own baby in this situation. Realistically, everyone dies. Turn and fight those Nazi cows!

To me, the real question is would anybody be able to do anything in these situations but stand there slack-jawed and pulling out their picture phone? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

Also, found this, pretty hilarious: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/parental/coats.asp

Rory’s last blog post..?They say there’s no truth in advertising??