Trolley problem

Last updated
One of the dilemmas included in the trolley problem: should you pull the lever to divert the runaway trolley onto the side track? Trolley Problem.svg
One of the dilemmas included in the trolley problem: should you pull the lever to divert the runaway trolley onto the side track?

The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments in ethics and psychology, involving stylized ethical dilemmas of whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number. The series usually begins with a scenario in which a runaway tram or trolley is on course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally five) down the track, but a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track. Then other variations of the runaway vehicle, and analogous life-and-death dilemmas (medical, judicial etc.) are posed, each containing the option to either do nothing, in which case several people will be killed, or intervene and sacrifice one initially "safe" person to save the others.

Contents

Opinions on the ethics of each scenario turn out to be sensitive to details of the story that may seem immaterial to the abstract dilemma. The question of formulating a general principle that can account for the differing judgements arising in different variants of the story was raised in a 1967 philosophy paper by Philippa Foot, and dubbed "the trolley problem" by Judith Jarvis Thomson in a 1976 article that catalyzed a large literature. Thus, in this subject the trolley problem refers to the meta-problem of why different judgements are arrived at in particular instances, which are called trolley cases, examples, dilemmas, or scenarios.

The most basic version of the dilemma, known as "Bystander at the Switch" or "Switch", goes:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

  1. Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
  2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

Philippa Foot introduced this genre of decision problems in 1967 as part of an analysis of debates on abortion and the doctrine of double effect. [1] Philosophers Judith Thomson, [2] [3] Frances Kamm, [4] and Peter Unger have also analysed the dilemma extensively. [5] Thomson's 1976 article initiated the literature on the trolley problem as a subject in its own right. Characteristic of this literature are colorful and increasingly absurd alternative scenarios in which the sacrificed man is instead pushed onto the tracks as a weight to stop the trolley, has his organs harvested to save transplant patients, or is killed in more indirect ways that complicate the chain of causation and responsibility.

Earlier forms of individual trolley scenarios antedated Foot's publication. Frank Chapman Sharp included a version in a moral questionnaire given to undergraduates at the University of Wisconsin in 1905. In this variation, the railway's switchman controlled the switch, and the lone individual to be sacrificed (or not) was the switchman's child. [6] [7] German philosopher of law Karl Engisch discussed a similar dilemma in his habilitation thesis in 1930, as did German legal scholar Hans Welzel in a work from 1951. [8] [9] In his commentary on the Talmud, published long before his death in 1953, Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz considered the question of whether it is ethical to deflect a projectile from a larger crowd toward a smaller one. [10]

Beginning in 2001, the trolley problem and its variants have been used in empirical research on moral psychology. It has been a topic of popular books. [11] Trolley-style scenarios also arise in discussing the ethics of autonomous vehicle design, which may require programming to choose whom or what to strike when a collision appears to be unavoidable. [12]

Original dilemma

Foot's version of the thought experiment, now known as "Trolley Driver", ran as follows:

Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible, it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram, which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots, the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples, the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five. [1]

A utilitarian view asserts that it is obligatory to steer to the track with one man on it. According to classical utilitarianism, such a decision would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all). [13] An alternative viewpoint is that since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, moving to another track constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise no one would be responsible. An opponent of action may also point to the incommensurability of human lives. Under some interpretations of moral obligation, simply being present in this situation and being able to influence its outcome constitutes an obligation to participate. If this is the case, then doing nothing would be considered an immoral act.

Empirical research

In 2001, Joshua Greene and colleagues published the results of the first significant empirical investigation of people's responses to trolley problems. [14] Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, they demonstrated that "personal" dilemmas (like pushing a man off a footbridge) preferentially engage brain regions associated with emotion, whereas "impersonal" dilemmas (like diverting the trolley by flipping a switch) preferentially engaged regions associated with controlled reasoning. On these grounds, they advocate for the dual-process account of moral decision-making. Since then, numerous other studies have employed trolley problems to study moral judgment, investigating topics like the role and influence of stress, [15] emotional state, [16] impression management, [17] levels of anonymity, [18] different types of brain damage, [19] physiological arousal, [20] different neurotransmitters, [21] and genetic factors [22] on responses to trolley dilemmas.

Trolley problems have been used as a measure of utilitarianism, but their usefulness for such purposes has been widely criticized. [23] [24] [25]

In 2017, a group led by Michael Stevens performed the first realistic trolley-problem experiment, where subjects were placed alone in what they thought was a train-switching station, and shown footage that they thought was real (but was actually prerecorded) of a train going down a track, with five workers on the main track, and one on the secondary track; the participants had the option to pull the lever to divert the train toward the secondary track. Most of the participants did not pull the lever. [26]

Survey data

The trolley problem has been the subject of many surveys in which about 90% of respondents have chosen to kill the one and save the five. [27] If the situation is modified where the one sacrificed for the five was a relative or romantic partner, respondents are much less likely to be willing to sacrifice the one life. [28]

A 2009 survey by David Bourget and David Chalmers shows that 68% of professional philosophers would switch (sacrifice the one individual to save five lives) in the case of the trolley problem, 8% would not switch, and the remaining 24% had another view or could not answer. [29]

Criticism

In a 2014 paper published in the Social and Personality Psychology Compass, [23] researchers criticized the use of the trolley problem, arguing, among other things, that the scenario it presents is too extreme and unconnected to real-life moral situations to be useful or educational. [30]

Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs go even further and assert that the thought experiment is not only useless, but also downright detrimental to human psychology. The authors opine that to make cold calculations about hypothetical situations in which every alternative will result in one or more gruesome deaths is to encourage a type of thinking that is devoid of human empathy and assumes a mandate to decide who lives or dies. They also question the premise of the scenario. "If I am forced against my will into a situation where people will die, and I have no ability to stop it, how is my choice a "moral" choice between meaningfully different options, as opposed to a horror show I've just been thrust into, in which I have no meaningful agency at all?" [31]

In her 2017 paper published in the Science, Technology, and Human Values, Nassim JafariNaimi [32] lays out the reductive nature of the trolley problem in framing ethical problems that serves to uphold an impoverished version of utilitarianism. She argues that the popular argument that the trolley problem can serve as a template for algorithmic morality is based on fundamentally flawed premises that serve the most powerful with potentially dire consequences on the future of cities. [33]

In 2017, in his book On Human Nature, Roger Scruton criticises the usage of ethical dilemmas such as the trolley problem and their usage by philosophers such as Derek Parfit and Peter Singer as ways of illustrating their ethical views. Scruton writes, "These 'dilemmas' have the useful character of eliminating from the situation just about every morally relevant relationship and reducing the problem to one of arithmetic alone." Scruton believes that just because one would choose to change the track so that the train hits the one person instead of the five does not mean that they are necessarily a consequentialist. As a way of showing the flaws in consequentialist responses to ethical problems, Scruton points out paradoxical elements of belief in utilitarianism and similar beliefs. He believes that Nozick's experience machine thought experiment definitively disproves hedonism. [34] In his 2017 article The Trolley Problem and the Dropping of Atomic Bombs, Masahiro Morioka considers the dropping of atomic bombs as an example of the trolley problem and points out that there are five “problems of the trolley problem,” namely, 1) rarity, 2) inevitability, 3) safety zone, 4) possibility of becoming a victim, and 5) the lack of perspective of the dead victims who were deprived of freedom of choice. [35]

In a 2018 article published in Psychological Review, researchers pointed out that, as measures of utilitarian decisions, sacrificial dilemmas such as the trolley problem measure only one facet of proto-utilitarian tendencies, namely permissive attitudes toward instrumental harm, while ignoring impartial concern for the greater good. As such, the authors argued that the trolley problem provides only a partial measure of utilitarianism. [24]

Five cases of the trolley problem: the original Switch, the Large Man, the Large Villain, the Loop, and the Man in the Yard The trolley problem.svg
Five cases of the trolley problem: the original Switch, the Large Man, the Large Villain, the Loop, and the Man in the Yard

Trolley problems highlight the difference between deontological and consequentialist ethical systems. [12] The central question that these dilemmas bring to light is on whether or not it is right to actively inhibit the utility of an individual if doing so produces a greater utility for other individuals.

The basic Switch form of the trolley problem also supports comparison to other, related dilemmas:

The large man

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very large man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Resistance to this course of action seems strong; when asked, a majority of people will approve of pulling the switch to save a net of four lives, but will disapprove of pushing the large man to save a net of four lives. [36] This has led to attempts to find a relevant moral distinction between the two cases.

One possible distinction could be that in the first case, one does not intend harm towards anyone – harming the one is just a side effect of switching the trolley away from the five. However, in the second case, harming the one is an integral part of the plan to save the five. This solution is essentially an application of the doctrine of double effect, which says that one may take action that has bad side effects, but deliberately intending harm (even for good causes) is wrong. This is an argument which Shelly Kagan considers (and ultimately rejects) in his first book The Limits of Morality. [37]

Implications for autonomous vehicles

Variants of the original Trolley Driver dilemma arise in the design of software to control autonomous cars. [12] Situations are anticipated where a potentially fatal collision appears to be unavoidable, but in which choices made by the car's software, such as into whom or what to crash, can affect the particulars of the deadly outcome. For example, should the software value the safety of the car's occupants more, or less, than that of potential victims outside the car. [38] [39] [40] [41]

A platform called Moral Machine [42] was created by MIT Media Lab to allow the public to express their opinions on what decisions autonomous vehicles should make in scenarios that use the trolley problem paradigm. Analysis of the data collected through Moral Machine showed broad differences in relative preferences among different countries. [43] Other approaches make use of virtual reality to assess human behavior in experimental settings. [44] [45] [46] [47] However, some argue that the investigation of trolley-type cases is not necessary to address the ethical problem of driverless cars, because the trolley cases have a serious practical limitation. It would need to be top-down plan in order to fit the current approaches of addressing emergencies in artificial intelligence. [48]

Also, a question remains of whether the law should dictate the ethical standards that all autonomous vehicles must use, or whether individual autonomous car owners or drivers should determine their car's ethical values, such as favoring safety of the owner or the owner's family over the safety of others. [12] Although most people would not be willing to use an automated car that might sacrifice themselves in a life-or-death dilemma, some[ who? ] believe the somewhat counterintuitive claim that using mandatory ethics values would nevertheless be in their best interest. According to Gogoll and Müller, "the reason is, simply put, that [personalized ethics settings] would most likely result in a prisoner’s dilemma." [49]

In 2016, the German government appointed a commission to study the ethical implications of autonomous driving. [50] [51] The commission adopted 20 rules to be implemented in the laws that will govern the ethical choices that autonomous vehicles will make. [51] :10–13 Relevant to the trolley dilemma is this rule:

8. Genuine dilemmatic decisions, such as a decision between one human life and another, depend on the actual specific situation, incorporating “unpredictable” behaviour by parties affected. They can thus not be clearly standardized, nor can they be programmed such that they are ethically unquestionable. Technological systems must be designed to avoid accidents. However, they cannot be standardized to a complex or intuitive assessment of the impacts of an accident in such a way that they can replace or anticipate the decision of a responsible driver with the moral capacity to make correct judgements. It is true that a human driver would be acting unlawfully if he killed a person in an emergency to save the lives of one or more other persons, but he would not necessarily be acting culpably. Such legal judgements, made in retrospect and taking special circumstances into account, cannot readily be transformed into abstract/general ex ante appraisals and thus also not into corresponding programming activities. … [51] :11

Real-life incident

An actual case approximating the Trolley Driver dilemma occurred on June 20, 2003, when a runaway string of 31 unmanned Union Pacific freight cars was barreling toward Los Angeles along the mainline track 1. To avoid the runaway train from entering the Union Pacific yards in Los Angeles, where it would not only cause damage, but was also where a Metrolink passenger train was thought to be located, dispatchers ordered the shunting of the runaway cars to track 4, through an area with lower-density housing of mostly lower-income residents. The switch to track 4 was rated for 15 mph (24 km/h) transits, and dispatch knew the cars were moving significantly faster, thus likely causing a derailment. [52] The train, carrying over 3,800 short tons (3,400 t) of mostly lumber and building materials, then derailed into the residential neighborhood in Commerce, California, crashing through several houses on Davie Street. The event resulted in 13 minor injuries, including a pregnant woman asleep in one of the houses who managed to escape through a window and avoided serious injury from the lumber and steel train wheels that fell around her. [53]

Similar dilemmas have been proposed in science fiction stories, including in "The Cold Equations" (Tom Godwin, 1954), in which a pilot must decide whether to retain a stowaway, which would cause his ship to run out of fuel, or complete his mission to deliver vital medicine for six settlers.

Film, stage, and television

A trolley problem experiment was conducted in season two, episode one of the YouTube Original series Mind Field , presented by Michael Stevens, [26] but no paper was published on the findings.

The trolley problem forms the major plot premise of an episode from The Good Place , also named "The Trolley Problem", in which the immortal afterlife being Michael (Ted Danson) magically creates an extremely realistic simulation of the scenario in order to see how the ethics would actually play out. [54] The trolley problem is referenced again in the eleventh episode of the second season, in which Michael concludes that the solution is self-sacrifice.

The movie Eye in the Sky (2015 film) centers around a similar dilemma - whether to bomb terrorists and save thousands, at the cost of the life of an innocent bystander. Dramatic production choices imply interesting comparisons. The life in question is a cute, socially responsible ten-year-old girl.

See also

Related Research Articles

Casuistry Reasoning by extrapolation

Casuistry is a process of reasoning that seeks to resolve moral problems by extracting or extending theoretical rules from a particular case, and reapplying those rules to new instances. This method occurs in applied ethics and jurisprudence. The term is also commonly used as a pejorative to criticize the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions. It is the "[s]tudy of cases of conscience and a method of solving conflicts of obligations by applying general principles of ethics, religion, and moral theology to particular and concrete cases of human conduct. This frequently demands an extensive knowledge of natural law and equity, civil law, ecclesiastical precepts, and an exceptional skill in interpreting these various norms of conduct." It remains a common tool for applied ethics.

Ethics Branch of philosophy concerning right and wrong conduct

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior". The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.

Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.

Morality Differentiation between right and wrong

Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong). Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

In developmental psychology and moral, political, and bioethical philosophy, autonomy is the capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision. Autonomous organizations or institutions are independent or self-governing. Autonomy can also be defined from a human resources perspective, where it denotes a level of discretion granted to an employee in his or her work. In such cases, autonomy is known to generally increase job satisfaction. Self-actualized individuals are thought to operate autonomously of external expectations. In a medical context, respect for a patient's personal autonomy is considered one of many fundamental ethical principles in medicine.

This Index of ethics articles puts articles relevant to well-known ethical debates and decisions in one place - including practical problems long known in philosophy, and the more abstract subjects in law, politics, and some professions and sciences. It lists also those core concepts essential to understanding ethics as applied in various religions, some movements derived from religions, and religions discussed as if they were a theory of ethics making no special claim to divine status.

Utilitarian bioethics refers to the branch of bioethics that incorporates principles of utilitarianism to directing practices and resources where they will have the most usefulness and highest likelihood to produce happiness, in regards to medicine, health, and medical or biological research.

Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people's beliefs about morality. It contrasts with prescriptive or normative ethics, which is the study of ethical theories that prescribe how people ought to act, and with meta-ethics, which is the study of what ethical terms and theories actually refer to. The following examples of questions that might be considered in each field illustrate the differences between the fields:

Moral reasoning is the study of how people think about right and wrong and how they acquire and apply moral rules. It is a subdiscipline of moral psychology that overlaps with moral philosophy, and is the foundation of descriptive ethics.

Moral psychology is a field of study in both philosophy and psychology. Historically, the term "moral psychology" was used relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development. Moral psychology eventually came to refer more broadly to various topics at the intersection of ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind. Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral identity, moral action, moral development, moral diversity, moral character, altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral forecasting, moral emotion, affective forecasting, and moral disagreement.

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic as a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1958 and expanded upon the theory throughout his life.

In psychology, a dual process theory provides an account of how thought can arise in two different ways, or as a result of two different processes. Often, the two processes consist of an implicit (automatic), unconscious process and an explicit (controlled), conscious process. Verbalized explicit processes or attitudes and actions may change with persuasion or education; though implicit process or attitudes usually take a long amount of time to change with the forming of new habits. Dual process theories can be found in social, personality, cognitive, and clinical psychology. It has also been linked with economics via prospect theory and behavioral economics, and increasingly in sociology through cultural analysis.

Machine ethics is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence concerned with adding or ensuring moral behaviors of man-made machines that use artificial intelligence, otherwise known as artificial intelligent agents. Machine ethics differs from other ethical fields related to engineering and technology. Machine ethics should not be confused with computer ethics, which focuses on human use of computers. It should also be distinguished from the philosophy of technology, which concerns itself with the grander social effects of technology.

Behavioural ethics is a new field of social scientific research that seeks to understand how people actually behave when confronted with ethical dilemmas. It refers to behaviour that is judged according to generally accepted norms of behaviour.

Joshua Greene (psychologist) American experimental psychologist, neuroscientist, and moral philosopher

Joshua David Greene is an American experimental psychologist, neuroscientist, and philosopher. He is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. Most of his research and writing has been concerned with moral judgment and decision-making. His recent research focuses on fundamental issues in cognitive science.

Dual process theory (moral psychology)

Dual process theory within moral psychology is an influential theory of human moral judgment that posits that human beings possess two distinct cognitive subsystems that compete in moral reasoning processes: one fast, intuitive and emotionally-driven, the other slow, requiring conscious deliberation and a higher cognitive load. Initially proposed by Joshua Greene along with Brian Sommerville, Leigh Nystrom, John Darley, Jonathan David Cohen and others, the theory can be seen as a domain-specific example of more general dual process accounts in psychology, such as Daniel Kahneman's "system1"/"system 2" distinction popularised in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Greene has often emphasized the normative implications of the theory, which has started an extensive debate in ethics.

The tunnel problem is a philosophical thought experiment first introduced by Jason Millar. It is a variation on the classic trolley problem designed to focus on the ethics of autonomous vehicles, as well as the question of who gets to decide how they react in life-and-death scenarios.

Moral blindness, also known as ethical blindness, is defined as a person's temporary inability to see the ethical aspect of a decision they are making. It is often caused by external factors due to which an individual is unable to see the immoral aspect of their behavior in that particular situation.

Iyad Rahwan Syrian-Australian computational social scientist

Iyad Rahwan, is a Syrian-Australian scientist. He is the director of the Center for Humans and Machines at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. Between 2015 and 2020, he was an associate professor of Media Arts & Sciences at the MIT Media Lab. Rahwan's work lies at the intersection of the computer and social sciences, where he has investigated topics in computational social science, collective intelligence, large-scale cooperation, and the social aspects of artificial intelligence.

Frank Chapman Sharp was an American philosopher who specialized in ethics, including business ethics and the ethical conduct of war.

References

  1. 1 2 Philippa Foot, "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect" in Virtues and Vices (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978) (originally appeared in the Oxford Review, Number 5, 1967.)
  2. Judith Jarvis Thomson, Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem , 59 The Monist 204-17 (1976)
  3. Jarvis Thomson, Judith (1985). "The Trolley Problem" (PDF). Yale Law Journal. 94 (6): 1395–1415. doi:10.2307/796133. JSTOR   796133.
  4. Myrna Kamm, Francis (1989). "Harming Some to Save Others". Philosophical Studies. 57 (3): 227–60. doi:10.1007/bf00372696. S2CID   171045532.
  5. Peter Unger, Living High and Letting Die (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
  6. Frank Chapman Sharp, A Study of the Influence of Custom on the Moral Judgment Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin no.236 (Madison, June 1908), 138.
  7. Frank Chapman Sharp, Ethics (New York: The Century Co, 1928), 42-44, 122.
  8. Engisch, Karl (1930). Untersuchungen über Vorsatz und Fahrlässigkeit im Strafrecht. Berlinn: O. Liebermann. p. 288.
  9. Hans Welzel, ZStW Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 63 [1951], 47ff.
  10. Hazon Ish, HM, Sanhedrin #25, s.v. "veyesh leayen". Available online, http://hebrewbooks.org/14332, page 404
  11. Bakewell, Sarah (2013-11-22). "Clang Went the Trolley". The New York Times.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Lim, Hazel Si Min; Taeihagh, Araz (2019). "Algorithmic Decision-Making in AVs: Understanding Ethical and Technical Concerns for Smart Cities". Sustainability. 11 (20): 5791. arXiv: 1910.13122 . doi: 10.3390/su11205791 .
  13. Barcalow, Emmett, Moral Philosophy: Theories and Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2007. Print.
  14. Greene, Joshua D.; Sommerville, R. Brian; Nystrom, Leigh E.; Darley, John M.; Cohen, Jonathan D. (2001-09-14). "An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment". Science. 293 (5537): 2105–2108. Bibcode:2001Sci...293.2105G. doi:10.1126/science.1062872. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   11557895. S2CID   1437941.
  15. Youssef, Farid F.; Dookeeram, Karine; Basdeo, Vasant; Francis, Emmanuel; Doman, Mekaeel; Mamed, Danielle; Maloo, Stefan; Degannes, Joel; Dobo, Linda (2012). "Stress alters personal moral decision making". Psychoneuroendocrinology. 37 (4): 491–498. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.07.017. PMID   21899956. S2CID   30489504.
  16. Valdesolo, Piercarlo; DeSteno, David (2006-06-01). "Manipulations of Emotional Context Shape Moral Judgment". Psychological Science. 17 (6): 476–477. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.x. ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   16771796. S2CID   13511311.
  17. Rom, Sarah C., Paul, Conway (2017-08-30). "The strategic moral self:self-presentation shapes moral dilemma judgments". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 74: 24–37. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.08.003. ISSN   0022-1031.
  18. Lee, Minwoo; Sul, Sunhae; Kim, Hackjin (2018-06-18). "Social observation increases deontological judgments in moral dilemmas". Evolution and Human Behavior. 39 (6): 611–621. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.06.004. ISSN   1090-5138. S2CID   150247068.
  19. Ciaramelli, Elisa; Muccioli, Michela; Làdavas, Elisabetta; Pellegrino, Giuseppe di (2007-06-01). "Selective deficit in personal moral judgment following damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2 (2): 84–92. doi:10.1093/scan/nsm001. ISSN   1749-5024. PMC   2555449 . PMID   18985127.
  20. Navarrete, C. David; McDonald, Melissa M.; Mott, Michael L.; Asher, Benjamin (2012-04-01). "Virtual morality: Emotion and action in a simulated three-dimensional "trolley problem"". Emotion. 12 (2): 364–370. doi:10.1037/a0025561. ISSN   1931-1516. PMID   22103331.
  21. Crockett, Molly J.; Clark, Luke; Hauser, Marc D.; Robbins, Trevor W. (2010-10-05). "Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (40): 17433–17438. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10717433C. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1009396107 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   2951447 . PMID   20876101.
  22. Bernhard, Regan M.; Chaponis, Jonathan; Siburian, Richie; Gallagher, Patience; Ransohoff, Katherine; Wikler, Daniel; Perlis, Roy H.; Greene, Joshua D. (2016-12-01). "Variation in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) is associated with differences in moral judgment". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 11 (12): 1872–1881. doi:10.1093/scan/nsw103. ISSN   1749-5016. PMC   5141955 . PMID   27497314.
  23. 1 2 Bauman, Christopher W.; McGraw, A. Peter; Bartels, Daniel M.; Warren, Caleb (September 4, 2014). "Revisiting External Validity: Concerns about Trolley Problems and Other Sacrificial Dilemmas in Moral Psychology". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 8 (9): 536–554. doi:10.1111/spc3.12131.
  24. 1 2 Kahane, Guy; Everett, Jim A. C.; Earp, Brian D.; Caviola, Lucius; Faber, Nadira S.; Crockett, Molly J.; Savulescu, Julian (March 2018). "Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology". Psychological Review. 125 (2): 131–164. doi:10.1037/rev0000093. PMC   5900580 . PMID   29265854.
  25. Kahane, Guy (20 March 2015). "Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment". Social Neuroscience. 10 (5): 551–560. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400 . PMC   4642180 . PMID   25791902.
  26. 1 2 Stevens, Michael (6 December 2017). "The Greater Good". Mind Field. Season 2. Episode 1. Archived from the original on 2021-12-12. Retrieved 23 December 2018.
  27. "'Trolley Problem': Virtual-Reality Test for Moral Dilemma – TIME.com". TIME.com.
  28. April Bleske-Rechek; Lyndsay A. Nelson; Jonathan P. Baker; Mark W. Remiker; Sarah J. Brandt (2010). "Evolution and the trolley problem: People save five over one unless the one is young, genetically related, or a romantic partner" (PDF). Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology. 4 (3): 115–127. doi:10.1037/h0099295. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-11.
  29. Bourget, David; Chalmers, David J. (2013). "What do Philosophers believe?" . Retrieved 11 May 2013.
  30. Khazan, Olga (July 24, 2014). "Is One of the Most Popular Psychology Experiments Worthless?". The Atlantic .
  31. Rennix, Brianna; Robinson, Nathan J. (November 3, 2017). "The Trolley Problem Will Tell You Nothing Useful About Morality". Current Affairs .
  32. JafariNaimi, Nassim (2018). "Our Bodies in the Trolley's Path, or Why Self-driving Cars Must *Not* Be Programmed to Kill". Science, Technology, & Human Values. 43 (2): 302–323. doi:10.1177/0162243917718942. S2CID   148793137.
  33. "Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill". MIT Technology Review. October 22, 2015.
  34. Scruton, Roger (2017). On Human Nature (1st ed.). Princeton. pp. 79–112. ISBN   978-0-691-18303-9.
  35. BBC Future (2020) Can nuclear war be morally justified?
  36. Peter Singer, Ethics and Intuitions The Journal of Ethics (2005). http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200510--.pdf Archived 2016-06-17 at the Wayback Machine
  37. Shelly Kagan, The Limits of Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
  38. Patrick Lin (October 8, 2013). "The Ethics of Autonomous Cars". The Atlantic.
  39. Jean-François Bonnefon; Azim Shariff; Iyad Rahwan (October 13, 2015). "Autonomous Vehicles Need Experimental Ethics: Are We Ready for Utilitarian Cars?". Science. 352 (6293): 1573–1576. arXiv: 1510.03346 . Bibcode:2016Sci...352.1573B. doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654. PMID   27339987. S2CID   35400794.
  40. Emerging Technology From the arXiv (October 22, 2015). "Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill". MIT Technology review. Archived from the original on January 26, 2016. Retrieved October 24, 2015.
  41. Bonnefon, Jean-François; Shariff, Azim; Rahwan, Iyad (2016). "The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles". Science. 352 (6293): 1573–1576. arXiv: 1510.03346 . Bibcode:2016Sci...352.1573B. doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654. PMID   27339987. S2CID   35400794.
  42. "Moral Machine". Moral Machine. Retrieved 2019-01-31.
  43. Awad, Edmond; Dsouza, Sohan; Kim, Richard; Schulz, Jonathan; Henrich, Joseph; Shariff, Azim; Bonnefon, Jean-François; Rahwan, Iyad (October 24, 2018). "The Moral Machine experiment". Nature. 563 (7729): 59–64. Bibcode:2018Natur.563...59A. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6. hdl: 10871/39187 . PMID   30356211. S2CID   53029241.
  44. Sütfeld, Leon R.; Gast, Richard; König, Peter; Pipa, Gordon (2017). "Using Virtual Reality to Assess Ethical Decisions in Road Traffic Scenarios: Applicability of Value-of-Life-Based Models and Influences of Time Pressure". Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 11: 122. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00122 . PMC   5496958 . PMID   28725188.
  45. Skulmowski, Alexander; Bunge, Andreas; Kaspar, Kai; Pipa, Gordon (December 16, 2014). "Forced-choice decision-making in modified trolley dilemma situations: a virtual reality and eye tracking study". Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 8: 426. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00426 . PMC   4267265 . PMID   25565997.
  46. Francis, Kathryn B.; Howard, Charles; Howard, Ian S.; Gummerum, Michaela; Ganis, Giorgio; Anderson, Grace; Terbeck, Sylvia (October 10, 2016). "Virtual Morality: Transitioning from Moral Judgment to Moral Action?". PLOS ONE. 11 (10): e0164374. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1164374F. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164374 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   5056714 . PMID   27723826.
  47. Patil, Indrajeet; Cogoni, Carlotta; Zangrando, Nicola; Chittaro, Luca; Silani, Giorgia (January 2, 2014). "Affective basis of judgment-behavior discrepancy in virtual experiences of moral dilemmas". Social Neuroscience. 9 (1): 94–107. doi:10.1080/17470919.2013.870091. ISSN   1747-0919. PMID   24359489. S2CID   706534.
  48. Himmelreich, Johannes (June 1, 2018). "Never Mind the Trolley: The Ethics of Autonomous Vehicles in Mundane Situations". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 21 (3): 669–684. doi:10.1007/s10677-018-9896-4. ISSN   1572-8447. S2CID   150184601.
  49. Gogoll, Jan; Müller, Julian F. (June 1, 2017). "Autonomous Cars: In Favor of a Mandatory Ethics Setting". Science and Engineering Ethics. 23 (3): 681–700. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9806-x. ISSN   1471-5546. PMID   27417644. S2CID   3632738.
  50. BMVI Commission (June 20, 2016). "Bericht der Ethik-Kommission Automatisiertes und vernetztes Fahren". Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (German: Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur). Archived from the original on November 15, 2017.
  51. 1 2 3 BMVI Commission (28 August 2017). "Ethics Commission's complete report on automated and connected driving". Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (German: Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur). Archived from the original on 15 September 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2021.
  52. "Update on Union Pacific Rail Accident in Commerce, California". National Transportation Safety Board. 2003-06-26. Archived from the original on 2021-05-13. Retrieved 2021-11-16.
  53. "Runaway freight train derails near Los Angeles". Commerce, California: CNN. 2003-06-21. Retrieved 2021-03-27.
  54. Perkins, Dennis (October 19, 2017). "Chidi wrestles with "The Trolley Problem" on a brilliantly funny The Good Place". avclub.com. The Onion . Retrieved March 28, 2018.
Listen to this article (18 minutes)
noicon
Sound-icon.svg
This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 30 April 2012 (2012-04-30), and does not reflect subsequent edits.