Massive psychological experiment in the KSP forums.

[Duxwing]

One should pull the lever because someone must do whatever duty one is believed undone and doable lest no-one should. Here, it is obvious that managing the trolley is a duty, that whoever was entrusted with it abandoned it, and that only one can do it; therefore, one must manage the trolley oneself and blame whatever harm might ensue on whoever let people onto trolley tracks, a trolley loose, and one control the lever.

-Duxwing

Edited February 18, 2015 by Duxwing

[Yukon0009]

I'm a psycopath.

[lajoswinkler]

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?

Vast majority would freeze up or panic, losing their marbles. Small fragment would be calm and push the lever. We call them psychopaths. Their brains lack the responsible neurochemical pathways or are morphologically abnormal, making them have a lack of empathy (although they can learn to emulate it, even though they don't feel it). To them, this is a matter of solving a math problem.

Not all psychopaths are evil. Probably a significant deal of them live pretty normal lives because they've adapted to the society. In certain cases, if they weren't raised well and if they get hold of power, they wreck havoc.

Their condition is not cool or useful. It makes their lives much harder. It's a disability.

[DuoDex]

I hate this sort of thing.

[Duxwing]

Vast majority would freeze up or panic, losing their marbles. Small fragment would be calm and push the lever. We call them psychopaths. Their brains lack the responsible neurochemical pathways or are morphologically abnormal, making them have a lack of empathy (although they can learn to emulate it, even though they don't feel it). To them, this is a matter of solving a math problem.

Not all psychopaths are evil. Probably a significant deal of them live pretty normal lives because they've adapted to the society. In certain cases, if they weren't raised well and if they get hold of power, they wreck havoc.

Their condition is not cool or useful. It makes their lives much harder. It's a disability.

You neglect the people who would pull the lever despite their grief and anxiety: them we call heroes.

-Duxwing

[problemecium]

Unfortunately my life is too boring for me to have ever been in a situation that would tell me just how I would really behave in this situation, but I voted "kill one" because all else being equal, I'll get in less trouble if I pick the choice that can be easily defended from a human moral standpoint: if my boss fires me or someone tries to sue or something, it should be easy to convince them that I chose the lesser of two evils.

In the grand scheme of things, I must note that killing four humans may well be better in the interest of sustainability. The way I see it all of the world's major problems today are in some way the result of overpopulation.

[Brethern]

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?

Simple if I do nothing I wouldn't be the one killing them, but if I help them the blood is on my hands, not to mention the fact I would be no better than they are.

[r4pt0r]

In the grand scheme of things, I must note that killing four humans may well be better in the interest of sustainability. The way I see it all of the world's major problems today are in some way the result of overpopulation.

Thats why I picked what I picked.

[Bill Phil]

Simple if I do nothing I wouldn't be the one killing them, but if I help them the blood is on my hands, not to mention the fact I would be no better than they are.

That's the same reasoning behind people not helping someone if they yell "....!"*.

*R a p e

[Duxwing]

That's the same reasoning behind people not helping someone if they yell "....!".

Indeed, one must heroically rise to the occasion.

-Duxwing

[Brethern]

That's the same reasoning behind people not helping someone if they yell "....!"*.

*R a p e

Let me reiterate, you would be HELPING TERRORISTS. helping them makes you a terrorist as well.

[razark]

Simple if I do nothing I wouldn't be the one killing them, but if I help them the blood is on my hands, not to mention the fact I would be no better than they are.

If you do nothing, you are causing four deaths as much as not pulling the lever causes four deaths. If you help them, then you are making the same trade as the lever, killing one to save four.

You say you wouldn't be the one killing the four, but in the other case you aren't killing them, the train is. In my situation, because the is another active agent you are able to shift the blame to that agent, even if the end result is the same.

[Brethern]

If you do nothing, you are causing four deaths as much as not pulling the lever causes four deaths. If you help them, then you are making the same trade as the lever, killing one to save four.

You say you wouldn't be the one killing the four, but in the other case you aren't killing them, the train is. In my situation, because the is another active agent you are able to shift the blame to that agent, even if the end result is the same.

So you're ok with helping terrorists?

[razark]

So you're ok with helping terrorists?

So perhaps "terrorist" was a bad hypothetical choice for my thought experiment. It seems to be pulling you away from the point I was trying to make.

In both cases your choice directly leads to either four deaths or one death. You're fine with trading one death for four in one case, but not fine with it in another.

Is it the manner of those deaths that changes the situation, or is it that you can blame another actor for the result?

[Bill Phil]

Let me reiterate, you would be HELPING TERRORISTS. helping them makes you a terrorist as well.

I was talking about the original problem..

Everybody calm down! Let's clarify which problem you're talking about!

Actually it's a general thing... Applying to many situations.

[Brethern]

So perhaps "terrorist" was a bad hypothetical choice for my thought experiment. It seems to be pulling you away from the point I was trying to make.

In both cases your choice directly leads to either four deaths or one death. You're fine with trading one death for four in one case, but not fine with it in another.

Is it the manner of those deaths that changes the situation, or is it that you can blame another actor for the result?

It's the matter of the deaths, In the train example, It's circumstances beyond my control forcing someone to choose between four or one. In the other example. It's a group of people who are perfectly willing to kill millions forcing someone to become an assassin for whatever reason. How can anyone in good conscience support a group like that?

[Captain Vlad]

Throw the lever. Attempt to tackle the one guy on that track off the track. Try not to die.

[lajoswinkler]

You neglect the people who would pull the lever despite their grief and anxiety: them we call heroes.

-Duxwing

There's nothing heroic about that act.

Heroism is sacrificing (with full consent and fearful emotions that come with it) yourself for the benefit of others despite having odds against you. For example firefighter rushing into a burning house to save a person collapsed on the floor even though chances are they'll get killed.

[r4pt0r]

Heroes put themselves in danger to do good despite the risks.

[Tommygun]

I'd Pull the lever and then wait for the wrongful death lawsuit from the family of the killed worker.

[ZedNova]

I'd Pull the lever and then wait for the wrongful death lawsuit from the family of the killed worker.

Better than dealing with 3 lawsuits right?

There's only three because the 4th guy had no family, so sad.

[Tommygun]

Better than dealing with 3 lawsuits right?

There's only three because the 4th guy had no family, so sad.

I wonder if you can be sued for not doing anything?

It wouldn't stop a lawyer from trying in civil court, but would it get thrown out.

[Bill Phil]

They can do something to you if you chose not to do something... Legally, of course.

[razark]

It's a group of people who are perfectly willing to kill millions...

It is? I don't recall ever stating that, simply that you were in a position where your choice decided between one or four deaths.

I mean, really? If <hypothetical group> is that blood-thirsty, then why would they go to the trouble of setting up this thought exercise for you, instead of killing <political leader> themselves?

[Tommygun]

They can do something to you if you chose not to do something... Legally, of course.

Governments can, but can the general public in civil court.

They do have good samaritan laws that offer some legal protection to people that try to help.

I guess it's called "Duty to rescue" in tort law, but that's a whole new thread and it will derail this one.