Thereโs a famous philosophical dilemma called the โtrolley problem.โ In this hypothetical scenario, thereโs an out of control train on a track thatย is being repaired by five workers. You’re given just a second or two to decide if you want to to flip a switch and divert the train onto a second track. The dilemma is that there is a worker on theย second track who will be killed if you flip the switch.
The opposing philosophies which apply here are โutilitarianโ – overall good of many, and โthou shalt not harmโ – leave it to a higher authority, and donโt consciously kill another person.
Studies have shown that 90 percent of people opted to kill one worker to save five when presented with this dilemma.ย The studies were then repeated with a twist. Subjects now wore virtual reality gear which projected an avatar of the worker. Surprisingly, 90 percent of people still opted to flip the switch and kill the lone worker even though they could now seeย their โvictim.โ There was no change in the results.
Here comes the interesting part. When subjects were told that they had to physically push the worker and kill him instead of flipping a switch to save the other five, only 50 percent opted to kill him. And here’s the kicker. When people were told that the worker on the second track was either their spouse, sibling or parent, only one-third opted to save the five workers.
What can we infer? That evolution has selected a majority of those who will make split second decisions to kill another? That we don’t like to get our hands dirty? That weโre selfish and will sacrifice others in order to saveย our own? That there are powerful evolutionary forces which propel us into horrific acts when it is a matter of survival?
Are we condemned to always play out our Darwinian impulses? Will our humanity always beat out the divinity in us? That’s not a cheerful picture, if true.
What’s your take?

Leave a Reply