A YouTuber has brought the classic moral dilemma known as the trolley problem to life. This ethical puzzle asks if it’s morally defensible to sacrifice one person to save five others. The dilemma was initially introduced by philosopher Philippa Foot and gained further attention through an article by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.
Imagine you’re driving a trolley that’s out of control. As you round a bend, you see five track workers ahead, unable to move out of the way in time. The brakes fail when you attempt to stop. Suddenly, you notice a side track you could divert the trolley onto, but there’s a catch—there’s one worker on that track who also can’t escape in time. Thomson poses the question: is it morally acceptable to redirect the trolley, sacrificing one to save five? The consensus among those presented with this scenario is generally yes.
When this question is asked in a theoretical context, the majority opinion leans towards the moral acceptability of sacrificing one to save five. Interestingly, when the scenario is made more tangible, such as having to push someone off a bridge to stop the trolley, fewer people view the action as morally right.
So, what would people do if faced with a real-life version of this scenario? The YouTube channel Vsauce explored this question in a 2017 experiment, using deception to make participants believe they were faced with this very choice. Michael Stevens, the mind behind Vsauce, and his team took measures to minimize potential harm to participants, screening out those with a history of mental illness or trauma. They employed actors to play the roles of workers on the tracks and used video footage to simulate an oncoming train.
Participants, selected by a clinical psychologist, were led to believe they were part of a focus group at an old train station. They were given the opportunity to “cool down” in a nearby switching station, where an actor explained the function of a lever that could switch the tracks. Left alone, the participants were then shown the video of the train hurtling towards the five workers, with the option to pull the lever and divert the train, sacrificing one.
Before the train “struck,” the screen went black, and a message reassured everyone that it was just a test and all were safe. Despite the precautions, the experiment raises ethical questions, particularly regarding its approval by an ethics board in an academic setting.
The reactions and decisions made by participants were varied. Some were terrified or anxious, believing the situation was real, while others speculated on additional safety measures or assumed the workers would notice the train. Out of seven participants, two decided to pull the lever, a lower rate than when the dilemma is presented abstractly. This discrepancy highlights the complexity of moral decision-making in real-life situations.
Stevens acknowledged the limitations of the experiment, viewing it as a preliminary study to identify significant variables and unforeseen issues. It serves as a foundation for future research, aiming for increasingly refined methodologies.
Given the ethical complexities involved, a follow-up experiment seems unlikely in the near future.
[Hat tip to No Such Thing As A Fish]