Comments on: People Will Virtually Kill One To Save Five

By: Shaun Banks

Shaun Banks — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:17:50 +0000

To quote Spock “The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few”

It all just boils down to simple maths – so long as you kill less than you save it will all be all right in the end. If you have to kill talentless celebrities then don’t even bother with the math or worry about saving anyone, just kill them all (Film the killings obviously as this is what they would have wanted).

Obviously it will always depend on who you are saving and who you are killing to be able to make a sensible choice.

By: alan

alan — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:39:25 +0000

“participants who did not pull the switch were more emotionally aroused. Nobody knows why that is”
Might it be that they perceive making a decision (right, wrong or ambivalent) in such situations, as implicating themselves in the outcome? Whereas doing nothing, permits them to retain a modicum of detachment.

“sacrificing one to save many ”
Err… may I suggest that those predisposed to the alternative response in large percentages, may well have removed themselves and their tribes from the gene pool some time ago.

By: spiderabc1

spiderabc1 — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:34:54 +0000

@Berber Anna – apparently prison has been rather cuchti for while now ; ) – I get your point of course.

And it’s nice to know someone else is on the internet early in the morning reading this blog. As an outsider I would have picked chocolate ice cream and for the country, obviously Svalbard ; ) re:DB live show

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:46:34 +0000

In real life, while doing nothing may be negligence, pulling the switch is manslaughter. I’d prefer not to go to prison, so I’d do nothing (apart from yelling to warn the 5).

By: I3R0K3N7FEET

I3R0K3N7FEET — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:46:35 +0000

Why am I in control of the train and why are there people on the tracks?

The way the simulation is worded, that the single person ‘wouldnt see the train coming’, does that mean that the group of 5 would see it coming? Then should I really be responsible to undermine the intelligence of 5 human beings and kill an unsuspecting victim?

In a real life situation you would be able to see, or at least you would assume so if youre making the decision, what happens and how people react and it is likely you would make some calls and have them arrested/ removed. If its a split second decision.. then I would have to consider the track that the train would take and the dangers of that too. By then it would be too late and I’d simply decide what right do I have over other peoples lives anyway…

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:05:56 +0000

virtually is pretty key. As a test, this is totally useless IMO. People behave radically different in virtual worlds since it’s a place to “act out” on emotions and decisions you’d not otherwise necessarily make. Just look at the GTA games as an example, and Fable too perhaps.

By: Lewis

Lewis — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:36:25 +0000

What were the hikers walking on a live railway line for anyway?

By: Darren

Darren — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:01:22 +0000

Now make the lone hiker the subjetcs father and see how that affects the figures. What would it take to tip the balance? Five people, ten, twenty? Very difficult decision.

By: Lauren (@TheGrottoTweets)

Lauren (@TheGrottoTweets) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:31:06 +0000

We call this “The Trolley Problem” in America. Long a favorite of academia, whether you’re studying psychology, philosophy or law.

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

By: Merle

Merle — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:52:43 +0000

Radiolab examined this same problem, with a twist, in their episode on Morality:

http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/13/chimp-fights-and-trolley-rides/