Massive psychological experiment in the KSP forums.

[gmpd2000]

The problem:

There are 4 workers in a train line, there is a train coming, the workers can't see the train nor they can be warned about it.

However, there is a lever that if pulled, it will put the train on an alternate train line where is only 1 worker on it.

If the train hits anyone, they will be killed.

Answer in the poll above.

Please:

DO NOT ATTACK PEOPLE BY THE CHOICE THEY'VE MADE!

Edited February 18, 2015 by gmpd2000

[Bill Phil]

Really depends on the people. If I don't know them, then it's better to kill one guy than four.

[lajoswinkler]

In theory, the solution is easy. To minimize damage, you pull the lever.

But there's a difference between "what is the best solution" and "what do you think you'd probably do".

Healthy brains would have an enormous difficulty deciding about this in an actual setting. Psychopaths' brains don't have such difficulties.

[Elthy]

Like James T. Kirk i dont belive in no-win scenarios...

[Starwhip]

This is a very, very hard decision. Logic dictates that you pull the lever: fewer people die. But then you feel that by doing something, you made the choice that kills someone. But if you don't pull the lever, more people die.

Almost as bad as the Miligram Experiment...

[ZedNova]

I'd probably pull the lever, less people dead overall.

Technically i'm pulling the lever to save 4/5 people; versus not pulling the lever and killing 4/5 people.

Edited February 18, 2015 by ZedNova

[Spartwo]

Will I be arrested for murder? I assumed no and killed that one guy. His name was Phil. He was working there to pay for a college education, he was 24.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Spartwo

[zekes]

I don't see the difficulty. It's either kill four people by doing nothing or flip a switch that saves three of them. I'd consider it in terms of how many people are saved considering there is no solution for killing no one - therefore the lever is unquestionably the morally correct decision and i would have no trouble throwing it, nor would i feel guilty afterwards because I actually "saved" their lives.

[Brethern]

I'd pull the lever.

[GoSlash27]

I yanked that sucker.

The decision to not act is still a decision, so the only choice I have is to either kill 4 people or kill one.

Best,

-Slashy

[Brethern]

Like James T. Kirk i dont belive in no-win scenarios...

And as Khan taught Kirk, no win scenarios exist.

[razark]

If I pull the lever, I am taking an action that kills someone.

By not pulling the lever, I am not actively killing anyone.

In the calm of reading something on the internet, everyone answers "pull the lever". In the actual event, how many people would freeze up and not pull the lever for whatever reason?

[Nuke]

being the psycho that i am i would have to pick the second option, except id do it whilst eating popcorn. then when the cops come i can say: 'not my fault'.

[GoSlash27]

If I pull the lever, I am taking an action that kills someone.

By not pulling the lever, I am not actively killing anyone.

True. You're standing by and allowing 4 people to die who you could have saved.

In the calm of reading something on the internet, everyone answers "pull the lever". In the actual event, how many people would freeze up and not pull the lever for whatever reason?

No way of knowing that short of actually putting them in that situation. Besides, it wouldn't answer the original question.

Best,

-Slashy

[razark]

You're standing by and allowing 4 people to die who you could have saved.

Correct, but I would not be the active agent in those deaths. A person can rationalize their inaction that way.

"If I do something, I'm at fault. If I do nothing, I'm just an innocent bystander."

I'm not responsible for it, because:

They knew the risk and should have been paying attention.

Whoever sent the train down the track is to blame.

Safety procedures were not followed, causing it.

It's not my job.

I don't know if I could have reached the lever in time.

And so on.

No way of knowing that short of actually putting them in that situation. Besides, it wouldn't answer the original question.

And that's one of the reason such thought experiments don't always apply to reality. We all know what the "correct" answer is, but that doesn't explain why people will stand by and allow things they could have prevented.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Sounds familiar to something I heard they asked in the military. (Referenced from Chicken Hawk)

"You are driving a truck full of a platoon, and there are sheer drops off either end. A little girl walks out in front of you. Do you drive off the cliff, and kill your platoon. Or do you kill the little girl"

Obvious answer is to kill the girl. Or in this case, kill the other

[Starwhip]

Sounds familiar to something I heard they asked in the military. (Referenced from Chicken Hawk)

"You are driving a truck full of a platoon, and there are sheer drops off either end. A little girl walks out in front of you. Do you drive off the cliff, and kill your platoon. Or do you kill the little girl"

Obvious answer is to kill the girl. Or in this case, kill the other

Or just apply the brakes?

The vagueness of these things is misleading.

[Spartwo]

It's not my job.

This one just sounds like laziness.

[ZedNova]

Another thing to note is that people will change their decision if you change the people in danger.

So changing the one worker to a baby, and the 4 workers to blind and deaf old people would give you different responses.

[Brethern]

If I pull the lever, I am taking an action that kills someone.

By not pulling the lever, I am not actively killing anyone.

In the calm of reading something on the internet, everyone answers "pull the lever". In the actual event, how many people would freeze up and not pull the lever for whatever reason?

But you were in range of the lever, you had the power and the ability to save those four people. By standing by you may as well have been the one to kill them.

[Starwhip]

The wording of the poll question is biased.

1: Pull the lever and kill one person

2: Do nothing and watch how 4 persons are killed.

The second seems more "evil".

[razark]

This one just sounds like laziness.

And yet people will still use it to rationalize their decisions. Also check out the "bystander effect".

As for changing the situation:

A group from <terrorist group> approaches you, and says "We need you to kill <political leader>. If you don't, we will kill these four random civilians."

As in the train experiment, If you act, one person dies. If you don't act, four people die. Does the situation change how you view the morality of action vs. inaction?

Or:

There's four workers on one track, and four workers on the other. If you allow the train to continue, four people will die. If you pull the lever, four people will die. Is pulling the lever as "correct" as not pulling the lever? In either case, four arbitrary people will die.

[Superfluous J]

Pull the lever.

Not pulling the lever when you could is not "not making a decision." It's deciding to kill 4 people you could have saved.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Or just apply the brakes?

The vagueness of these things is misleading.

You are going to fast to stop

[TheDarkStar]

Pulling the lever is the only option. There's no reason I can think of to let more people die, assuming that they are all random people. Other than taking a moment to observe the situation, I probably wouldn't hesitate much to pull it - why wait to make the decision when it's already decided what needs to be done?