wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Lynda Lambert from Baltimore, MD July 08, 2007 - 06:16PM

  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.

  
  
• [2] Gary from Germany July 13, 2007 - 12:55PM

  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.

  
  
• [3] SJ from Austin, Texas July 19, 2007 - 09:49PM

  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.

  
  
• [4] Bill Andrews from Vienna VA December 02, 2007 - 11:36AM

  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

  
  
• [5] Meghan from Portland, Oregon December 02, 2007 - 01:42PM

  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!

  
  
• [6] Alex Hayes from Baltimore, MD January 01, 2008 - 08:40AM

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

  
  
• [7] Brian January 05, 2008 - 01:00AM

  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.

  
  
• [8] Faldo May 08, 2008 - 08:19PM

  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.

  
  
• [9] Muzz from Evanston, IL May 28, 2008 - 03:44PM

  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

  
  
• [10] Frank Matheson from Salt Lake City August 04, 2008 - 02:28PM

  This piece was rebroadcast yesterday and while i found it interesting, it was also terribly flawed and disturbing. While there is some merit in looking at brain scans to understand how we are able to respond to a moral dilemma in a split second, without having the time to analyze or understand our reasoning. I was disturbed that the moral dilemmas presented were not explored and in fact represented the choices were presented as logical equivalents. Which they are not.

  In the the later case it was presented that taking the baby's life would save the lives of the rest of the village, a logical and justifiable trade-off. In fact, it would merely eliminate the chance that the baby would alert the army to the village's presence. What if the baby were allowed to survive and didn't make a sound? What if the baby were killed and someone else sneezed and the village were was then wiped out? What if the baby made a sound but the army didn't hear it or recognize it? What if the presence of the village were discovered but the army decided to spare part or all of the village. What if the the army did shoot the villagers but the baby somehow survived, hidden among the villagers? what odds would you accept of survival (if it were possible to know) would you kill your child, 10% 20% 50%?

  
  
• [11] Frank Matheson from Salt Lake City August 04, 2008 - 02:29PM

  In taking the baby's life, the parent is making a series of assumptions, any one of which could be flawed. Based on those series of assumption the parent is taking unto himself the right to kill another human being.

  In the case of the train, 5 workers had put themselves at risk by being on the tracks and not paying attention to an incoming train. An individual on another track had placed himself in the same position. The parties are equivalents. Additionally, by pulling the lever to change the tracks you are not precluding any of the individuals from sparing themselves at the last minute, or from the train miraculously coming to a stop.

  However, taking the initiative to choose an uninvolved party, throw him over the railing to his certain death is not an equivalent.

  
  
• [12] Frank Matheson from Salt Lake City August 04, 2008 - 02:30PM

  Letting this logic run its course, anyone would feel empowered to kill another based solely on his own assumptions and judgment of what might happen in the future and his own calculations of what represents the greater good. It would put all of our lives at risk at any given time. While this piece was interesting from the perspective of scanned brain activity, it was shallow, morally and intellectually deficient, and frankly, offensive.

  
  
• [13] N.S. Palmer from USA January 25, 2009 - 11:48AM

  A fairly interesting discussion that is hampered by over-dramatization and heavy-breathing background music. Perhaps the producers felt that listeners couldn't focus on the program for an hour unless it contained a lot of irrelevant theatrics.

  
  
• [14] Dave from Minnesota February 27, 2009 - 04:21PM

  I also heard the re-broadcast.

  I recently heard what a great show this is and this was one the first podcasts that I've listened to. Very disappointing.

  I found very disturbing the way the some of the "moral equivalences" were presented as matters of fact - when, in fact, they weren't even close.

  Worse yet, this was "backed up" by functional MRI junk science.

  The fact that a different part of the brain lit up when considering pushing the fat guy? Did anyone consider that the brain was evaluating whether pushing a human body in front of a trolley would even be able to stop it?

  My goodness, this was really claptrap.

  Oh, then there was even one of my pet peeves: "I have a theory." It's supposed to be a science show - please don't use the word theory in such a sloppy manner.

  
  
• [15] Mary from Lexington Park, MD March 30, 2009 - 12:46AM

  I listened to the rebroadcast of this show and the following thought came to mind-- what would happen if these brainscans were done on people outside of the Western world? People whose cultures carry fundamentally different ideas of death, and more poignantly, of morality? Dualistic thinking (right/wrong, good/bad, which was featured so heavily in the show) has Western roots in Plato and Aristotle, and is totally absent in many Eastern and indigenous cultures. Although these results get us somewhere in a discussion on the biological basis of morality, I am not completely convinced that it's so cut and dry as evolution vs. inner chimp. I would be interested to see some research that spans geography and culture to give a more inclusive perspective on our species.

  
  
• [16] Florent from Burma August 10, 2009 - 12:25AM

  I asked the question about the lever to my students who are mostly Buddhists. Guess what? About 40% of them said they would not pull the lever. When I listened to the podcast first, I didn't even question the assumption that "hundreds of thousands of people have been questioned by email and 90% of them would pull the lever". It was even mentioned at some point that this is a UNIVERSAL response. This is a very quick shortcut I find. One should not jump to conclusions so quickly. Do the people who have access to internet really represent the majority of people on this planet? I doubt it. The students had a totally different reasoning. If the five guys are on the tracks and are going to die, that's their kamma. If you pull the lever, then you are actively causing the death of that one person, whereas if you don't pull it, you are passively witnessing the death of five people.

  
  
• [17] Jocelyn Brambila from thousand oaks, ca September 09, 2009 - 05:29PM

  first, i guess i am the only one but i would neither push nor switch a flick to save five people. The reasoning behind my decision is completely religious. I do not believe i should make the decision between life and death. it is not in my place to alter Gods plan if he believes that five should be killed there is a reason. Not only that, but I could never consciencely kill a person even if im saving others life. By changing the trains path or pushing a person i would be destroying someones life first hand; to me it would be murder.

  I can see why most people would have different answers. I do believe that different sides of the brain is used when answering the two questions. most people think rationally when it comes to the first question. when it comes to the second question people are more emotional than.

  this was a very interesting clip that makes people think. i truly enjoyed it.

  
  
• [18] Jeff Haynes from Rochester, NY November 09, 2009 - 03:12PM

  I'm listening to all the episodes (again) and listening to Jad say to Robert, "I would kill the baby ... you're gonna erase all those people based on your, one, child? ... I couldn't live with myself if I didn't act on behalf of the greater good."

  Jad, now that you're a father, the question is no longer abstract. So I'm wondering:

  Would you still kill the baby?