Radiolab

I have an answer to your connundrum. The reason why we feel it's ok to pull the lever to "kill one and save five" is because we're not close enough to do anything else, and we hope that the one might get out of the way. When the two men are on the bridge the MORAL thing to do is jump off the bridge in front of the train yourself to save all, except for you. Pushing someone else off the bridge would be actually choosing to save your own life over his; which is immoral. That's why on the bridge it would be murder and pulling the lever is a moral option.

Lynda has an interesting point. However, I believe that the problem lies in the question. The way the question set up the first scenario guarantees me that I can save five and kill one by pulling the lever. I know this, because I know the basic design of train tracks. I pull the lever to switch the tracks, the train switches tracks. That's the way trains work.

The second scenario, though, does NOT guarantee that I will save the five by killing one. My knowledge of physics says that there is no person large enough to stop a train (or even a trolley -- the sound effects were a train, though). This tells me that in the second scenario, I am going to kill a person and then see five more killed, as well.

Let me start by saying that the editor’s choice of going with that sound-clip of the researcher saying that almost no one can say why they chose one scenario over the other was little more than a condescending copout so they could move on through the story about this mystical MRI research.

My take is that even though empathy is strong component of morality, people’s decisions are also guided by their belief in charity, manners, accountability, responsibility, fairness, blood over water, war, death to 'the other' and any number of qualities valued in societies across the globe.

In a scenario where we are powerless to affect any change we feel bad for those on the tracks, but we understand that unfortunate things do happen. Some might question why all of these participants who seem to have experience working around trains would take their complete attention away from a possible disaster with the possibility of paying for their inattention with their lives. But, certain endeavors are risky (like working on or around train tracks) and we can accept the risk taken along with the possible outcomes for those on the tracks.

In a scenario where you are forced to act, either by not pulling the lever or by pulling it, you MUST decide the fate of the workers (1 or many) because you are aware of the events unfolding. But in this situation, one possible assumption is that the people on the tracks put themselves there (active participants), no one outside actor or force moved or pushed them onto the tracks. So, your decision (pulling or not) will impact active participants in a risky endeavor, you just need to decide how many (simple math).

In the final scenario, you’re no longer just choosing how many active participants should be hurt or killed. You are faced with the choice of taking a completely inactive participant in the scene (a bystander) and involving them in the unfolding events in a non-trivial way. This bystander in the scene had nothing to do with the events transpiring and if you don’t push him he may just make it home to live another day.

Whether you gave the respondents the option of physically pushing the man over the bridge railing, or letting them pull a lever from some far away vantage that would wedge him beneath the train, or ‘wishing’ him onto the tracks, or any other contrived scenario, most would still say no because involving an outside participant challenges our sense of ‘fairness’ as they put it.

Thank you for an excellent radio program and podcast. I teach a course on the psychology of combat. I've incorporated this podcast into my course, as a means to consider the biological basis for moral decisions. Thanks for a fascinating program. Some of the ideas I think about are on my personal blog at www.oncombat.net/blog

First of all, I love Radio Lab. I heard a portion of this episode on 'this american life' and was instantly hooked. I am very much looking forward to the next season... the teasers/podcasts as of late have been great, but at the same time killing me because I can't wait for the next new episodes.

Anyhow, just wanted to say that waiting in line at the grocery store, i noticed time magazine had asked 'what makes us good or evil.' i didn't purchase it but quickly found the section before checking out and just about every question you posed in this section was asked in the magazine... the train one, the baby one etc.

Made me think about the episode and now i must listen to it again.

Thanks for all the good work and good luck with the upcoming season!

Does this idea of chimp morality fly in the face of the judeo-christian concept of original sin?

I just heard this program (apparently a rerun) today. I had the same thought as Larry. The idea of stopping the train by pushing the guy onto the tracks didn't register with me as a clear way to prevent the deaths of the other five (even though the hypo told me to assume otherwise). I think that plays into the decision subconsciously even for those who think it doesn't.

I'm with Gary and Brian on the fat guy and the trolley scenario. I think even those who don't see it obviously, understand that no matter how much you tell people that they can stop the trolley by pushing somebody in its way, no one is going to believe you. You are going to kill six people rather than five if you push him.

What about a brain scan of a utilitarian?

I would argue that it is moral, thought painful, to push the large man off the bridge. I have serious emotional qualms about that answer, and would probably not actually have the gall to do it in real life.

So I suspect a brain scan of me answering that question would look mostly identical to those who answered no, as we both experience the same emotional revulsion. Our brains look similar, thought we answer differently.

-Muzz