The Trolley Problem
“…let's imagine there is a runaway trolley barrelling [sic] down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people. The only way to save them is by pulling a lever that will make the trolley switch to a side track, where, however, there is another person. Would you pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track to save five people?”
The trolley problem is a favorite of researchers studying moral decision-making. Many consider it a good test of individual differences in approaches to moral dilemmas, basically variations on Hot versus Cold decision-making: emotional versus cognitive, empathetic versus detached, aversion to directly causing personal harm versus impartial concern for the greater good. Is it such a good test? Not really.
First, moral decisions in the trolley problem bear little relation to subjects’ level of empathy or emotionality, as measured both by self-report and physiological indicators (Cecchetto et al, 2017). Most subjects make the cool decision of directly harming one person to save five. Empathetic or highly emotional subjects may feel more distress in doing so, but that doesn’t stop them from pulling the imaginary lever.
Second, the moral choices of study participants confronting the trolley problem may not generalize beyond that specific hypothetical. For instance, participants who take a utilitarian approach in the trolley problem - pulling the lever for the greater good – do not consistently make utilitarian decisions in other hypothetical scenarios (Kahane et al, 2015). In other words, moral choices in the trolley problem may not reflect a person’s general tendencies.
Third, researchers may misconstrue the basis of moral decision-making in the trolley problem. This choice is often conceived as between a rule-based aversion to directly causing personal harm (so don’t kill a person by pulling lever) and a consequence-based consideration of the greater good (so pull lever, killing one but saving five). But is the dilemma really about going with a rule versus going with a calculation of consequences and the greater good? Couldn’t both be rule-based variations on “do no harm”?
- Rule One: do not directly harm others.
- Rule Two: prevent grievous harm to others when you can.
One need not be thinking of the “greater good” when pulling the lever to kill one/save five. One need not switch into cool deliberative reasoning mode to pull the lever. Our hot emotions get the idea of “more” and can do their own quick calculation: more people = more harm. Decision made.
References:
Kahane, G., Everett, J., Earp, B., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193–209. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.005
SISSA. "Empathy and moral choices: Study limits the role of emotions in moral decisions." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 17 February 2017. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170217100155.htm .
Cinzia Cecchetto, Sebastian Korb, Raffaella Ida Rumiati, Marilena Aiello. Emotional reactions in moral decision-making are influenced by empathy and alexithymia. Social Neuroscience, 2017; 1 DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2017.1288656