What do you think about killing one innocent person to save others? What would you choose if you were asked? Think twice as the level of trust people place in you depends on your answer.
2400 people made their choices during 9 experiments conducted by scientists from Oxford and Cornell Universities. Research data shows that people with unconditional moral values (refusing to sacrifice an innocent person no matter what) are considered to be more reliable social partners, Science Daily reports.
Black and White Approach to Morality
In the course of the experiments, participants were supposed to decide whether they are content to sacrifice one innocent person for the sake of saving several people or not.
In one scenario, volunteers had to imagine an uncontrolled tram rushing towards a group of people. They could save those people by pushing a large man on the road in front of the tram. People faced the following dilemma: to sacrifice the life of one man to save 5 other people or not. In another variant respondents didn’t have to touch the man — they could direct the tram to another track by pressing a button where it would only hit 1 person instead of 5.
After the experiment, the volunteers had to rate other participants by how much they trusted them. Those who held to absolute morals (refused to cause death of an innocent person) and those who were more flexible achieved substantially different levels of trust. The participants were also asked whom they would be more eager to offer a money loan if they wanted to ensure getting it back. People with the black and white approach to morals scored higher than the ones who wanted to save lives of many by sacrificing one person.
The researchers concluded that people with black and white approach to morality seem more trustworthy and believable.
However, the way how the choice was made had proven to be important as well. Those who found it difficult to make the decision to sacrifice someone’s life were trusted more than individuals who considered the decision to be easy.
In another situation the decision had to be made whether to leave a wounded soldier on the battlefield to save lives of the other soldiers. In one scenario the wounded soldier asked to be left behind, in another the victim begged not to leave him. Participants who were respectful of the person’s wishes won higher trust.
The research shows that it’s hard to make single-minded decisions. There are always multiple circumstances that matter. In real life, research shows that people tend to change their moral values to benefit themselves.
We often change our ways of thinking due to life experiences and become more or less rigid in our ethical beliefs.
Share this article
I guess I would be considered totally untrustworthy since I wouldn’t have to think hard before shoving the one guy in front of the tram to save five others (of course, only when I’m absolutely sure it will work, which I doubt :p).
How can people justify killing five people (yes, you killed, since you could have saved them) instead of one?
Henk,
I wouldn’t shove one person under a tram to save 5 people. I simply can’t. (How do I know that 5 people are not some criminals and the one person is not someone who will save millions by inventing a cure for cancer? Who am I to decide who lives and who dies?)
I also wouldn’t be able to kill someone to save myself. If there was a Mad Max type world disaster, I doubt I would survive. 😉
I am sorry, but I cannot see how dithering and an inability to make a hard call entitles anyone to claim the moral high ground. And, Elena, by refusing to act, you ARE “deciding who lives and who dies.” So, you see, you actually are capable of making the call. By refusing to act, you ARE acting. Your hypothetical justification for condemning five people to death – that they might be criminals, while the man you are sparing might be some Christ-like figure is information likely to be unavailable to you in the moment, and is actually just another excuse… Read more »
David, killing an INNOCENT person is not my call. And it’s not the values of the modern society either. Watch The Box movie, it’s quite revealing in regard to sacrificing someone else you don’t know. Yes, I might throw myself under a tram to save others but I won’t throw you. That’s my values and my choices, and I don’t care for a coffee with you or your enjoyment. Sure, existing daily in the realities of a battlefield changes your outlook on life. So, Iraq and all, I had friends in Russia who fought in Afganistan in 1980s. I get… Read more »
I am going to assume that you are bright enough to understand that I was not inviting you for coffee – merely stating that I would not want to have to rely on you when anything more serious was at stake. I am sorry that you feel compelled to react to disagreement by resorting to cheap shots, such as suggesting that my being willing to make a hard, ugly decision is the equivalent of being the sort of moral and ethical dwarf who simply chooses a day-to-day existences as a liar, cheat and thief. In any even, I think that… Read more »
David L, I only don’t care for the opinions of people who do not care for the opinions of others. This story was about a research. What people “chose” when being put in a certain imaginary situation was fake. They do not know what they are really going to do if this happens. The majority would simply freeze, wouldn’t be able to find a solution and deduct consequences — too short a time. They have not been in a situation of life and death, haven’t had the training. That’s the truth. What people have indicated in the second stage of… Read more »
OK, Elena, no doubt you’re right.
OK, Elena, no doubt you’re right. I don’t recall saying anything about struggling to make a connection with anyone, and when
Elena, I was going to try to respond to you, but I think that it makes more sense to simply tell you that you’re right, all the way across the board, and just drop it. So, congrats – you win.
Thanks David, it’s very sweet of you. 🙂
C’est moi!
I agree with you completely, i wouldnt hesitate, to me there is no dilemma, or even a question aboit it. Letts phrase it a different way: “”You must choose between an action that causes one death or inaction causing 5 deaths. Which do you choose?” Put it that way, you’d get different results.
I think the hands on nature of causing the one guys death skewed the results. YOU kill him, personally if you choose that, but with thre 5 people you can blame thr train
I think you guys speculate too much. I am pretty sure in a real life situation like this, 99.99% of people would do nothing. Definitely wouldn’t push a fat guy next to them on the rails. These hypothetical situations, especially when you are given an incomplete “task” (you do not know who are the people that you have to decide to live or die), or even know 100% it’s going to work (that you are not going to kill both the fat guy and the 5 people will die, too) are simply set ups for suckers (apology for the expression)… Read more »
I’m sure that I would choose to sacrifice one man to save the others while taking the test. But in real life I am not able to do it. There are too many differences between some virtual situation and real killing a person. I can’t push anybody under a tram. Though, I probably could direct the tram to another track. The question is “will you save?”, but in fact you are to choose how many people to kill, it means you will kill, no other ways. And there is no right answer.
I’m not sure if the results mentioned here are correct. At the end, five people would die instead of one if everyone behaves the way that the society approves of here. Of course, I wouldn’t have faith in a person who doesn’t even have any doubts before sacrificing one person. However, I don’t think that they do it because human lives mean nothing to them; maybe, on the contrary, they mean too much and the person simply tries not to analyze all the implications of the choice. In the situation with the wounded soldier, I’d also decide to follow their… Read more »