NPR Radiolab morality test

[kvnchrist]

I was listening to NPR Radio lab yesterday and they were talking with some very interesting people and I'd like to ask you guys a few things and maybe we can learn some more on this.

They were asking two questions initially and then a third below. All of them numbered in boxed in. I would like you to give an answer, either yes, you would or no you would not and give a reason please for your decision. Thank you.

(1) If you were standing on an embankment, looking down into a raveen and saw a railcar track with a runaway freight car rolling down a hill. Below the car were five men, working on the tracks who were facing away from the car and there was no way to warn them in time to save them. Luckily there was a junction in the tracks and the lever was near you. You also notice there is a lone person walking down the side track, equally oblivious to the car.

Would you do nothing and let the car kill those 5 men or would you pull the lever and send the car into the back of the single person, killing him?

(2) If you in a similar situation, but with a single track and the same 5 men. You were on an overhead trestle and there was a fat man standing by the edge and you knew that pushing that man onto the tracks would kill him, but save the 5 men by doing so, would you push the fat man?

 

This whole thing was about the idea that both times, by your own actions you would kill that one man and the study they had showed that almost all who answered the study would have pulled the lever to save the 5 men and kill the lone individual, but very few would have pushed the man.

They did brain scans of people who were responding to the answers and found different parts of the brain illuminated on either question. They were talking about the Chimp reflex, or something to that effect. How the brain functions in making a spit second decision and how a different area of the brain illuminated when a moral or ethical question is being decided upon.

There was also a discussion with a child psychologist that was talking about the age when a child starts making ethical and moral decisions on there own. This is after they had rules set down by the teacher. That was very fascinating.

The last part talked about the human brains way of determining the right course of action. They used the following question in that study.

If you were in a group running for your lives from people who wanted to kill you. There were 20 or more people in your party and you had your 4month old baby with you who has a cold and his nose was stooped up. He could only breath out of his mouth. You took refuge in a basement of the house and these people entered the ground floor above you and your baby started acting up. You knew that it would start to cough and if it did all of those in that basement would be killed.

(3) Would you hold your hand over it's mouth, suffocating it in order to save the rest of you or would you allow its cries to doom everyone?

 

 

[Vagrant0]

1. I would question as to why anyone would be standing on an embankment while this was happening without thinking first of shouting before switching the tracks. I would also question why someone wouldn't try to time their switching of the track for when the car is right over the junction so that the car gets derailed. You may still fail, but have the highest chances of saving both groups.

 

2. You're a horrible person for thinking that just because the man is fat that he will be able to stop the train.

 

3. Why are you with a group of 20 people who are running for their lives anyway, much less with a baby in tow, sick or otherwise? Young children are always a liability in a refuge situation, so you shouldn't go with any large groups as large groups tend to draw enough attention on their own. With a smaller group, you have much better chances in moving past settlements without people making note, being able to travel by water to make your trail harder to follow, and leave a smaller footprint in any wilderness camps you make. Even so, why would you go right away to suffocation? Snapping the baby's neck would be much faster, quieter, and cause less suffering without being reliant on the baby being sick. Can also be done while traveling so that you can toss the baby off a bridge into the water so that you don't leave behind a clear scent for dogs to pick up. If you don't do it, someone else in the group probably would, which leads to hostility and feelings of mistrust that can be equally risky for the group. But anyway... If the moral decision of killing your child to make it to safety isn't to your liking, then you should have been smart in the first place and not traveled with a group.

[kvnchrist]

1. I would question as to why anyone would be standing on an embankment while this was happening without thinking first of shouting before switching the tracks. I would also question why someone wouldn't try to time their switching of the track for when the car is right over the junction so that the car gets derailed. You may still fail, but have the highest chances of saving both groups.

 

2. You're a horrible person for thinking that just because the man is fat that he will be able to stop the train.

 

3. Why are you with a group of 20 people who are running for their lives anyway, much less with a baby in tow, sick or otherwise? Young children are always a liability in a refuge situation, so you shouldn't go with any large groups as large groups tend to draw enough attention on their own. With a smaller group, you have much better chances in moving past settlements without people making note, being able to travel by water to make your trail harder to follow, and leave a smaller footprint in any wilderness camps you make. Even so, why would you go right away to suffocation? Snapping the baby's neck would be much faster, quieter, and cause less suffering without being reliant on the baby being sick. Can also be done while traveling so that you can toss the baby off a bridge into the water so that you don't leave behind a clear scent for dogs to pick up. If you don't do it, someone else in the group probably would, which leads to hostility and feelings of mistrust that can be equally risky for the group. But anyway... If the moral decision of killing your child to make it to safety isn't to your liking, then you should have been smart in the first place and not traveled with a group.

 

 

This was a study ran by a leading university and reported on an NPR radio program called Radiolab.

http://www.radiolab.org/

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91508-morality/

 

These were the questions that they asked the study group who they were doing brain scans on, while they asked these questions. I clearly stated that before I submitted them to for your indulgence.

 

I knew there would be someone who would try to get around responding to these by not taking them as if they were nothing more than test questions. I suggest next time if you don't want to answer the questions just don't reply.

 

Sorry if I bothered you!

[Tidus44]

In question 1 and 2, the only individuals in peril are the 5 men who have placed themselves in peril. The lone walker and the “fat man” are not a “trade off” in the measurement of the value of life and it isn’t justified to sacrifice them.

 

In the third question, all of the group are in peril with one eliminating any chance of the group’s survival. Sacrificing the child ensures the group survives and is justified.

[Nintii]

I would;

 

1) Save the five men .... reason .... they're in all likelihood married with children, therefore, the loss of

these men would have a greater impact than the loss of one.

 

2) I will not push the "fat man", because that means murder and I would not be willing to commit that act.

 

3) Again I would not kill the baby, I would let the baby cough into my mouth, exhale through my nostrils

then inhale fresh oxygen into it's mouth ... babies have small lungs ... and continue this until the

threat passed.

[KakeiTheWolf]

1. Time the switch to derail the car. Saves everyone if you succeed.

 

2. If a fat man was enough to stop the train, I'd jump off the edge myself to stop the train without killing others.

 

3. Cover the baby's mouth with something that wouldn't suffocate and would muffle the sound. No paucity of such things exist.

[kvnchrist]

Have you guys ever thought that along with the lighter side of life we should also discuss the darker side, as well.

Life has gotten so regulated that many people are shocked and horrified by reports of dog eat dog or kill or be killed.

Everywhere I've posted this people have become uncomfortable and have done their best to work around discussing this and I really am beginning to wonder what would happen to us if we were suddenly without the comforts we take for granted.

Are we better than animals, because of who we are or is it because we've created this comfort zone around us called society? Do we think we can outsmart or out talk our way out of a situation when those niceties have long since lost their usefulness?

If we were starving like those people in the lifeboat whose story I've heard prompted Herman Melville to write "Moby Dick"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_%28whaleship%29

could we have made their choice?

Could we make the choices those athletes did when their plane crashed on that mountain top

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Andes_flight_disaster

or The Donner Party in California, so long ago?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party

Could we even kill if terrorists took us and would kill us If we didn't kill them first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

The darker side of us is there. It doesn't matter how sophisticated we like to think we are. It's matters what we are prepared to do and capable of if the situation arises

[Vagrant0]

I knew there would be someone who would try to get around responding to these by not taking them as if they were nothing more than test questions. I suggest next time if you don't want to answer the questions just don't reply.

 

On the contrary. I wasn't getting around the questions... I answered them as they would be posed to me.

 

In the first situation, I would not accept the situation as a raw choice between one or the other because it clearly isn't. There are other things which could be done while you are sprinting down the supposed hillside down to the switch to flip the track that would improve the chances of all involved. In the act of switching the track while a freight car passes over it, it would force one set of wheels to go one way while the other set goes the other way, causing it to derail or otherwise come to a halt. As it is a freight car, the only loss involved with this method would be damage to the car and potential damage to the rails. There is no reason why you would not atleast attempt this third option.

 

In the second situation, there is clearly some bias in the belief that the girth of a person would be enough to stop a trolly, but the mass of the trolly running over the first of the 5 workers wouldn't... The logic here is flawed, therefore the related morality or problem solving is entirely questionable. If there were people on that trolly who would notice a person falling onto the tracks, obviously they would see the group ahead in time to stop, or would be accepting the failure of their position.

 

For the third situation, I explained it well enough. A large group trying to flee pursuers already has a significant disadvantage just because all it takes is one person to screw up. Even if the baby was sick and making noise, some other member of the group could be equally likely to make noise... So would you kill them too? With several smaller groups however, each group has a higher individual chance of success simply due to the fact that any pursuing group would have to split their resources or just focus on the one group they can follow. The series of events isn't one I would ever put myself in, so the situation itself is garbage.

 

 

I understand the purpose... It's to create contrived situations where there is some shallow moral decision to be weighed, or to maybe empathize with individuals who have had to make similar decisions... But it isn't an honest judge of morality.

[WarRatsG]

Life has gotten so regulated that many people are shocked and horrified by reports of dog eat dog or kill or be killed.

[/center]

And for good reason. Between a regulated world and a world where survival depends on my ability to kill, I'll take regulation. It may not shock you that someone had to make a hard decision - when you're sitting on your couch watching the news. You may become slightly more sympathetic if you find yourself stranded without supplies, or when someone presses a 4 inch blade to your throat, or your partners throat.

 

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but humans have very little innate capacity for violence towards other humans. Close to 90% cannot even look you in the eye when attacking. There is an extremely high percentage (>70%, the sources vary) of people who are psychologically incapable of initiating combat. It doesn't matter what you think you would do in a situation - when the moment arrives, most back out. Only training or imminent unavoidable danger will circumvent this.

 

 

To answer your questions though... Given the constraints of your question (ie yes/no, without middle ground or compromise):

 

1. Pull lever, save 5 compared to 1. In reality I'd go with derailing.

 

2. Don't push the man, not only is it direct murder but it may not even work.

 

3. Don't suffocate the baby, I'll gladly die before I commit infanticide. I don't care if it means we both die.

[kvnchrist]

 

I knew there would be someone who would try to get around responding to these by not taking them as if they were nothing more than test questions. I suggest next time if you don't want to answer the questions just don't reply.

 

On the contrary. I wasn't getting around the questions... I answered them as they would be posed to me.

 

In the first situation, I would not accept the situation as a raw choice between one or the other because it clearly isn't. There are other things which could be done while you are sprinting down the supposed hillside down to the switch to flip the track that would improve the chances of all involved. In the act of switching the track while a freight car passes over it, it would force one set of wheels to go one way while the other set goes the other way, causing it to derail or otherwise come to a halt. As it is a freight car, the only loss involved with this method would be damage to the car and potential damage to the rails. There is no reason why you would not atleast attempt this third option.

 

In the second situation, there is clearly some bias in the belief that the girth of a person would be enough to stop a trolly, but the mass of the trolly running over the first of the 5 workers wouldn't... The logic here is flawed, therefore the related morality or problem solving is entirely questionable. If there were people on that trolly who would notice a person falling onto the tracks, obviously they would see the group ahead in time to stop, or would be accepting the failure of their position.

 

For the third situation, I explained it well enough. A large group trying to flee pursuers already has a significant disadvantage just because all it takes is one person to screw up. Even if the baby was sick and making noise, some other member of the group could be equally likely to make noise... So would you kill them too? With several smaller groups however, each group has a higher individual chance of success simply due to the fact that any pursuing group would have to split their resources or just focus on the one group they can follow. The series of events isn't one I would ever put myself in, so the situation itself is garbage.

 

 

I understand the purpose... It's to create contrived situations where there is some shallow moral decision to be weighed, or to maybe empathize with individuals who have had to make similar decisions... But it isn't an honest judge of morality.

 

 

 

I reiterated that these were all controlled study questions. These were not my questions but questions asked by the person responsible for the study. I added them here to add to the atmosphere of the entire post.

 

The study was about seeing what areas of the brain controls the decision making process.

 

I wanted people to ponder what they would do if such a thing happened. I wasn't suggesting that these were possible or even provable, but you did sidestep the entire issue by rationalizing the whole thing.

 

Don't worry. This will be the last time I post something like this here.