Report Only if we could save more lives, 90% of us would pull a lever to kill someone.

[tom_mai78101]

The bad news - 90% of people admit that they would kill someone.

The good news? They would only do it if by killing that one person, they could save five other lives.

Recent research at Michigan State University used a 3D headset to 'put' students inside a virtual environment where a runaway train was heading towards a group of five people.

But by pulling a lever, the students could redirect the train onto another track, where one person would be crushed.

Ninety per cent of the students in the virtual environment made the decision to pull the lever and end the person's life.

Read more here.

 

[Dan]

I am more interested that in that specific circumstance--all things being equal as they were-- 10% said they would let the 5 die than the 1.

If the circumstance held some more information on your options and knowledge of the situation, it would make more sense to me... But seriously? The question is as simple as: "would you like one dollar or would you like five dollars?" I can't imagine 10% of a study group saying they would pick $1 in this situation, so the other makes little sense to me.


It gets really interesting when there are other factors added in. Maybe the 5 people have all been convicted of crimes and have done their time, and the one man is a well known philanthropist. Maybe the one guy is your friend. Maybe there are an equal number of people on each track but on one hand you have women and on the other you have men. All these types of choices are much more intriguing to me.

 

[Nigerianrulz]

I am more interested that in that specific circumstance--all things being equal as they were-- 10% said they would let the 5 die than the 1.

If the circumstance held some more information on your options and knowledge of the situation, it would make more sense to me... But seriously? The question is as simple as: "would you like one dollar or would you like five dollars?" I can't imagine 10% of a study group saying they would pick $1 in this situation, so the other makes little sense to me.


It gets really interesting when there are other factors added in. Maybe the 5 people have all been convicted of crimes and have done their time, and the one man is a well known philanthropist. Maybe the one guy is your friend. Maybe there are an equal number of people on each track but on one hand you have women and on the other you have men. All these types of choices are much more intriguing to me.

exactly what i thought, the condition of this stimulation is too simple there needs to be more differentiating factors.
Though this reminded me of Batman where joker was going to blow both the ships :O

 

[thewrongvine]

exactly what i thought, the condition of this stimulation is too simple there needs to be more differentiating factors.
Though this reminded me of Batman where joker was going to blow both the ships :O

Batman: What were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone's as ugly as you? You're alone.

lol.

 

[FireCat]

90% of people admit that they would kill someone.

The good news! Inside a virtual environment

 

[SH4D0WS1N]

This is so stupid. 90% is most likely a lie: the scenario states simply you chose between one death or five deaths, as stated in the article it was most likely that they froze up given the situation, however I was asked all of these under no stress. What this should have been followed up with is the second question I was told:
Now instead you're on a bridge just over the train. The train is heading towards a five people and will kill them. Next to you is a really fat guy that looks like he's about to fall off the bridge and onto the track. If you push him off, he will land on the track and actually stop the train, but killing him. What do you choose?

My teacher said there was no difference between the situations, but if you look at the first one you're choosing between saving one life or saving five lives. In the second scenario you're choosing between saving one life or directly killing one with saving five. Basically the first three choices, turn the lever, don't turn it, don't push the fat guy, are all indirect choices, while pushing the fat guy is a direct action resulting in you killing the person, which people may outweigh over saving five lives.

Those are just how I see it anywho.

I wrote out a whole thing on a text document with my views on the scenarios presented (there was another one) if anyone wishes to see it. In case you didn't realize I'm taking Philosophy as an elective in highschool.