Massive psychological experiment in the KSP forums.

[temporalExile]

My friend came up with a very interesting solution: pull the lever halfway so that the transition rail thing is halfway between each rail, which will stop the train, or at least slow it so that the people in danger might be able to notice and avoid the train.

Also relevant

[Mr Tegu]

to say that a psychopath does not experience fear or empathy isn't really accurate:

Hervey Cleckley’s List of Psychopathy Symptoms:

1. Considerable superficial charm and average or above average intelligence.

2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.

3. Absence of anxiety or other “neurotic†symptoms. Considerable poise, calmness and verbal facility.

4. Unreliability, disregard for obligations, no sense of responsibility, in matters of little and great import.

5. Untruthfulness and insincerity.

6. Antisocial behavior which is inadequately motivated and poorly planned, seeming to stem from an inexplicable impulsiveness.

7. Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior.

8. Poor judgment and failure to learn from experience.

9. Pathological egocentricity. Total self-centeredness and an incapacity for real love and attachment.

10. General poverty of deep and lasting emotions.

11. Lack of any true insight; inability to see oneself as others do.

12. Ingratitude for any special considerations, kindness and trust.

13. Fantastic and objectionable behavior, after drinking and sometimes even when not drinking. Vulgarity, rudeness, quick mood shifts, pranks for facile entertainment.

14. No history of genuine suicide attempts.

15. An impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated ... life.

16. Failure to have a life plan and to live in any ordered way (unless it is for destructive purposes or a sham).

[Brethern]

My friend came up with a very interesting solution: pull the lever halfway so that the transition rail thing is halfway between each rail, which will stop the train, or at least slow it so that the people in danger might be able to notice and avoid the train.

Also relevant

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/trolley_problem.png

It's most likely going to derail the train, which is defiantly going to cause more than four deaths.

[Bill Phil]

Yeah the world is dumb..

[swiftgates24]

If I pull the lever then I will have killed one person. If I just walk away, it's not my fault.

[Bill Phil]

If I pull the lever then I will have killed one person. If I just walk away, it's not my fault.

Actually you're equally at fault if you let four people die and had the ability to stop it...

[Tommygun]

Well in the original question, can you argue that you are not so much saving life as deciding which will die.

If you do nothing, then events unfold due to bad planning and safety procedures.

If you pull the lever, then you truly become part of the event.

Some might argue that they don't have a right to decide which people die.

This scenario is very different than saving one person's life or not.

Someone is going to die ether way.

[InterCity]

You could try half-switching. The train would probably derail. If it's a freight train, you might save lives. If not... you're going to have a bad day.

[Norpo]

You could try half-switching. The train would probably derail. If it's a freight train, you might save lives. If not... you're going to have a bad day.

Does this assume there's no one in the train?

If there are, then derailing it could result in more deaths...

[11of10]

Depends on the speed of the train as well. In a relatively slow moving train, the immense mass of the train might actually protect the passengers inside from harm as it would take some time to slow down even derailed.

As for the

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?

Depends on the country in which the event is happening.

People might just choose to put a bomb in the parliament building. Big bomb. With lots of explosives...

[cicatrix]

Actually you're equally at fault if you let four people die and had the ability to stop it...

Come on, even the worst lawyer in the world would destroy this charge - there was another life at stake, if it weren't the charge of negligence could have some ground under it but in this situation - not guilty.

[Frozen_Heart]

This one was tough but I chose pull the lever.

Though I'd be plotting to kill whoever put me in such a sadistic situation...

[cicatrix]

This one was tough but I chose pull the lever.

Though I'd be plotting to kill whoever put me in such a sadistic situation...

... pull the lever in order to stop the car and kill the survivors yourself?

[Bill Phil]

Come on, even the worst lawyer in the world would destroy this charge - there was another life at stake, if it weren't the charge of negligence could have some ground under it but in this situation - not guilty.

But even the worst lawyer could use the charge, depending on whose side he/she is on.

- - - Updated - - -

Come on, even the worst lawyer in the world would destroy this charge - there was another life at stake, if it weren't the charge of negligence could have some ground under it but in this situation - not guilty.

But even the worst lawyer could use the charge, depending on whose side he/she is on.

If you made a choice between the two options, and you COULD choose, you chose to kill four people...

[Denks]

If you pull the lever you aren't killing anyone, you're saving three people.

[WhiteKnuckle]

I think a lot of you who are talking about legal ramifications, train track dynamics, and whatnot are really missing the point. It's a thought experiment to see if you think rationally or emotionally. And to illustrate how morality influences our decision making process.

Boil it down:

You have a choice, you can do nothing and four people will die, or you can push a button and only one person will die. What do you do?

The second part of the thought experiment is always the fat man on the bridge. It's designed to eliminate the dehumanising action of pulling the lever. So to boil it down again:

You have a choice, you can do nothing and four people will die, or you can kill a person with your own hands and only that one will die. What do you do?

Responses to both questions split about 90% to 10%, but with opposite results. Despite the same initial conditions and the same end results for both scenarios. This shows how emotions cloud rational thinking.

[adsii1970]

And as Khan taught Kirk, no win scenarios exist.

Not true, Star Trek III found Spock alive.

Star Trek VI gave him a new Enterprise NCC-1701-A.

Then Again, Generations gave us the worst Star Trek movie of all time... as Bart Simpson said best, "It was a physical anomaly; it sucked and blowed!"

[Colserra3]

I chose to save the one guy. Everyone appears to be saying if you don't pull the lever you're killing four people, but if you pull it you're saving them. They refuse to acknowledge that by pulling the lever you're killing that one guy. You are deliberately putting him in harms way, whereas if you leave the four guys to die it's entirely not your fault. Either: They were stupid enough to be on a working track, or there was some miscommunication that lead to their deaths. Either way you are not involved; you are a bystander. No (just) court in the world can put in prison, or even fine you for not putting someone in harms way. If people hassle you saying 'How could you let four people die?', ask them 'So, you think the man deserved to die?' The families of the dead will hate you regardless of whether you make the "right" decision.

[carlpilot]

I would leave the lever where it is. If I did that, I would be observing the deaths of four people. If I switched the lever, I would have personally killed a person. Not wanting a battle in court, I would much rather watch die than kill.

-Carlpilot

[Accelerando]

I would close the thread.

[Bill Phil]

I would leave the lever where it is. If I did that, I would be observing the deaths of four people. If I switched the lever, I would have personally killed a person. Not wanting a battle in court, I would much rather watch die than kill.

-Carlpilot

Be careful there. You might still get a battle in court. It might be worse if they prove that you had the capacity to think clearly and make a rational decision to kill four people. Not to mention if they find out you did it to avoid the courts...

- - - Updated - - -

I think a lot of you who are talking about legal ramifications, train track dynamics, and whatnot are really missing the point. It's a thought experiment to see if you think rationally or emotionally. And to illustrate how morality influences our decision making process.

Boil it down:

You have a choice, you can do nothing and four people will die, or you can push a button and only one person will die. What do you do?

The second part of the thought experiment is always the fat man on the bridge. It's designed to eliminate the dehumanising action of pulling the lever. So to boil it down again:

You have a choice, you can do nothing and four people will die, or you can kill a person with your own hands and only that one will die. What do you do?

Responses to both questions split about 90% to 10%, but with opposite results. Despite the same initial conditions and the same end results for both scenarios. This shows how emotions cloud rational thinking.

Actually, if you think rationally to not pull the lever, you killed four people. You can claim that it's inaction, so you didn't do anything. But you CHOSE to take the action of inaction resulting in the deaths of four people.

[Duxwing]

Actually, if you think rationally to not pull the lever, you killed four people. You can claim that it's inaction, so you didn't do anything. But you CHOSE to take the action of inaction resulting in the deaths of four people.

And besides, one must heroically rise to the occasion.

-Duxwing

[blizzy78]

I've voted to kill the 4 guys. Why? Because it's not a real situation - my choice is without consequence.

[rtxoff]

^^ yeah i can only agree with blizzy on that. Also i think it really doesn't matter what you vote here, if you come into a real situation like this you might act different then you think right now.

You would have to come into the real situation to find out how you would really react to this. The OPs question is rather meaningless to find out if you are a psychopath or anything. I think this experiment is pretty useless.

[_Aramchek_]

I would not pull the lever, I wouldn't kill one person to "save" other people", none of the deaths are on my hands.

Human lives are not directly equatable to numeric plot devices.

- - - Updated - - -

that you had the capacity to think clearly and make a rational decision to kill four people. Not to mention if they find out you did it to avoid the courts...

Actually, if you think rationally to not pull the lever, you killed four people. You can claim that it's inaction, so you didn't do anything. But you CHOSE to take the action of inaction resulting in the deaths of four people.

This is NOT what is happening however, you have no responsibility in the deaths of those four people, and legally you would NOT be accused of "killing by inaction", there is no precedent anywhere for such an idea.

With one decision you are merely an observer, with the other, a murderer.

And we would all be better off if there were less people willing to pull the lever.