would you Kill One to Save Five?

Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:23 am » by **Freeyourmindnow**

It’s a moral and ethical problem that has been studied before: you see a train heading towards five hikers and you have the power to save them. Just pull a switch to make the train swerve out of the way on another track. BUT you’ll kill another hiker who won’t see the train coming at all. What do you do? Intervene? Or no?

Variations on this have vexed philosophers (and their students) for decades. Carlos David Navarrete, an evolutionary psychologist at Michigan State University, decided to apply a little technology to the problem.

He created a 3D, virtual environment in which subjects would experience the actual situation. Each subject was given a joystick that would throw the (virtual) switch, thus saving five people by sacrificing one. To monitor their emotional states, he attached sensors to the subjects’ fingertips. This is the first time anyone has measured a “physical” response to the ethical dilemma.

The result itself wasn’t that surprising: of the 147 participants, 133 (90.5 percent) pulled the switch to divert the train, resulting in the death of the one person. Fourteen participants allowed the train to kill the five. Eleven participants did not pull the switch at all, while three pulled the switch but then returned it to its original position. All this is consistent with earlier studies that didn’t use virtual reality.

The new data shows, however, that participants who did not pull the switch were more emotionally aroused. Nobody knows why that is. It may be because people “freeze up” during highly anxious moments, such as when soldiers fail to use their weapons in battle, Navarrete said in a press release.

For Navarette, the interesting thing was that while most people made the utilitarian choice -– sacrificing one to save many –- humans have to overcome a natural aversion to hurting other people. Rationalizing the choice (weighing the costs and benefits) can help people overcome that to make tough decisions like that. But in some cases, a person can get so anxious that they can’t make a decision at all, or make the wrong one

Upload to Disclose.tv

http://news.discovery.com/tech/virtual- ... 11206.html

what would you do? :think:

Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:39 am » by **Freeyourmindnow**

i think i would :peep:

very interesting stuff, how can you decides? what is wrong or right? What if that one person knows the cure to cancer and would otherwise save millions?

Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:42 am » by **Perry LaGuardia**

Ask SPOCK.....

Upload to Disclose.tv

Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:46 am » by **E6722maj**

simple really. you have to save the 5

.

Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:48 am » by **Slamgunshark**

would you Kill One to Save Five?

Yep.

Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:56 am » by **528hz**

There's a great TED talk on this subject.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kBdfcR-8hEY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If the embed fails here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8 ... r_embedded

Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:58 am » by **Perry LaGuardia**

528hz wrote:There's a great TED talk on this subject.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kBdfcR-8hEY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If the embed fails here's the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8 ... r_embedded

Upload to Disclose.tv

Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:01 am » by **Slith**

Prolly

[youtube]kBdfcR-8hEY&feature[/youtube]

528hz, just posting your vid

Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:02 am » by **528hz**

Thanks

Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:22 am » by **Frutty**

freeyourmindnow wrote:
It’s a moral and ethical problem that has been studied before: you see a train heading towards five hikers and you have the power to save them. Just pull a switch to make the train swerve out of the way on another track. BUT you’ll kill another hiker who won’t see the train coming at all. What do you do? Intervene? Or no?

Variations on this have vexed philosophers (and their students) for decades. Carlos David Navarrete, an evolutionary psychologist at Michigan State University, decided to apply a little technology to the problem.

He created a 3D, virtual environment in which subjects would experience the actual situation. Each subject was given a joystick that would throw the (virtual) switch, thus saving five people by sacrificing one. To monitor their emotional states, he attached sensors to the subjects’ fingertips. This is the first time anyone has measured a “physical” response to the ethical dilemma.

The result itself wasn’t that surprising: of the 147 participants, 133 (90.5 percent) pulled the switch to divert the train, resulting in the death of the one person. Fourteen participants allowed the train to kill the five. Eleven participants did not pull the switch at all, while three pulled the switch but then returned it to its original position. All this is consistent with earlier studies that didn’t use virtual reality.

The new data shows, however, that participants who did not pull the switch were more emotionally aroused. Nobody knows why that is. It may be because people “freeze up” during highly anxious moments, such as when soldiers fail to use their weapons in battle, Navarrete said in a press release.

For Navarette, the interesting thing was that while most people made the utilitarian choice -– sacrificing one to save many –- humans have to overcome a natural aversion to hurting other people. Rationalizing the choice (weighing the costs and benefits) can help people overcome that to make tough decisions like that. But in some cases, a person can get so anxious that they can’t make a decision at all, or make the wrong one

Upload to Disclose.tv

http://news.discovery.com/tech/virtual- ... 11206.html

what would you do?

Live and let die :peep: