Morality - Maybe not what we think it is.

[RandFan]

A year or so I posted a great moral dillema and thought experiment in a debate with Kevin and Mumblethrax. That dillema was featured on Radiolab recenly and I thought some might like to listen. It is very good and truly challenges some of our assumptions about the basis of morality.

Listen to the whole show or Download MP3

If you have a problem with the links you can find the show at: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28

 

[Squishua]

Being limited to dial-up at the moment, I am not going to spend god knows how long downloading that! Is there a transcript?

As far as the question of where morality comes from, I think the answer is rather simple.

It is learned.

The animal instinct is to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Morality and any other behavior arises from how each individual learns to define pleasure (and get it) and pain (and avoid it).

-Squish

 

[RandFan]

Being limited to dial-up at the moment, I am not going to spend god knows how long downloading that! Is there a transcript?

As far as the question of where morality comes from, I think the answer is rather simple.

It is learned.

No. It's not that simple at all. I'm sorry you can't down load the show. It's outstanding and scientifically based.

I'll try and find something. The dillemas are all over the internet but you really need the entire thing to understand why much of our past understanding is simply wrong.

 

[Squishua]

I'll try and find something. The dillemas are all over the internet but you really need the entire thing to understand why much of our past understanding is simply wrong.

Perhaps I will let the computer download it tonight while I sleep.

You've certainly piqued my curiosity!

-Squish

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Is it just me or is the host a shallow tool? Who is so completely oblivious to their own thinking as to not ever realize that it's the same thing if you push someone as to pull a lever?

At any rate, what purpose does this thought experiment serve? I'm fine with the idea that our moral sense is derived simply from the makeup of our brain, which in turn is derived from evolutionary pressure. It's all rather silly if you ask me. I for one couldn't jump to "pull the lever" so easily. For me it's just as tangibly present in my mind as pushing someone (I've never been one to obsess over physical contact, maybe someone knowing what I'm doing but...). I think instead I'd challenge the disembodied voice saying "you can't call out to them" and TRY to call out to them. I'd probably do something, just not the thing that sacrifices a stranger. It may not actually work out, but in that situation that's what I'm most likely to do. In reality there's too many factors for such a "which of your children do you kill?" scenario to actually occur. Besides that, morality is best formed for the majority of situations and not those rare extreme situations.

 

[RandFan]

Is it just me or is the host a shallow tool? Who is so completely oblivious to their own thinking as to not ever realize that it's the same thing if you push someone as to pull a lever?

?

I'm really not sure what the opinion of the host has to do with anything. Overwhelmingly people who are asked will give the same answer to the first question and the same answer to the second but both of those answers don't reconcile since the math of the dillema is the same. The answers themselves are consistent regardless of age, education, gender, religious belief or culture.

Nearly everyone asked will answer yes to the first but struggle with the second. Not everyone though. If you are one of the minority then you are simply the exception that proves the rule.

FWIW, this isn't about the host.

At any rate, what purpose does this thought experiment serve? I'm fine with the idea that our moral sense is derived simply from the makeup of our brain, which in turn is derived from evolutionary pressure. It's all rather silly if you ask me. I for one couldn't jump to "pull the lever" so easily. For me it's just as tangibly present in my mind as pushing someone (I've never been one to obsess over physical contact, maybe someone knowing what I'm doing but...). I think instead I'd challenge the disembodied voice saying "you can't call out to them" and TRY to call out to them. I'd probably do something, just not the thing that sacrifices a stranger. It may not actually work out, but in that situation that's what I'm most likely to do. In reality there's too many factors for such a "which of your children do you kill?" scenario to actually occur. Besides that, morality is best formed for the majority of situations and not those rare extreme situations.

The experiment is meaningless from an anecdotal perspective. I don't understand why we as humans want to personalize science and then come up with trite resolutions to resolve the issue to our own perspective.

It's not about you. It's not about any one specific. It's not about what people would really do in a given situation. It's not about how it would actually work out. It's not about changing the hypothetical so that it doesn't make you uncomfortable. Hypotheticals don't work that way. To reason via hypothetical we need to take it at face value. Getting in an argument with Einstein because we can't really travel at the speed of light is to miss the point of Einstein's famous hypothetical. Yes, I do know that somewhere out there is a guy that wants to change Einstein's hypothetical because he doesn't like it. We can't help everyone.

In any event, the purpose of the hypothetical and the scientific study is about,

• The overwhelming consistent responses to the different questions by people regardless of education, culture, class, gender, etc.
• The correlation of brain scans of people who are asked the questions.

It is the extreme situations that tease out the basis of human behavior and thought. In the past we thought morality was simply learned. Science has demonstrated that this might not very well be the case. If you don't have a problem with that then great. Thanks.

 

[Squishua]

Overwhelmingly people who are asked will give the same answer to the first question and the same answer to the second but both of those answers don't reconcile since the math of the dillema is the same. The answers themselves are consistent regardless of age, education, gender, religious belief or culture.

Nearly everyone asked will answer yes to the first but struggle with the second.

Would you mind posting the two questions you are referring to? I'd like to get a feel for what you're talking about.

Thanks,

-Squish

 

[RandFan]

Would you mind posting the two questions you are referring to? I'd like to get a feel for what you're talking about.

Thanks,

-Squish

Ok but I think you miss out on much by not having all of the other information. I really wish you would download it and listen.

Moral dilemma #1:
There is a train that is on a collision course for 5 men working on the tracks. There is a switch that will divert the train onto another track. However there is a single man working on that track. If you throw the switch the train will kill the other man. If you don't 5 men will die.

What do you do? Overwhelmingly people choose to throw the switch. It's not much of dilemma because the math makes sense. One man for 5.

Moral dilemma #2:
Same scenario only this time there is no switch and no alternate track. You are on a foot bridge that crosses over the tracks and there is nothing you can do... except there is a vary large man and if you push him off the bridge into the path of the train it will stop the train and save the 5 men.

What do you do? Here's the interesting part. People who are asked both questions will struggle with #2. Why? The math is the same. Both examples require killing 1 person to save 5 yet it is consistently problematic for people around the world regardless of culture, religion, lack of religion, social class, gender, etc.

Download the file and listen. It turns out that science actually has something to say about the difficulties people have with #2.

(no, you don't get to change the hypothetical if you don't like it don't play along)

 

[Cosmo]

Makes sense to me. Throwing a switch is far less of a "commitment" than actually pushing a man to his doom. It seems like you're less involved and/or somehow less responsible for the death of the single man.

 

[RandFan]

Makes sense to me. Throwing a switch is far less of a "commitment" than actually pushing a man to his doom. It seems like you're less involved and/or somehow less responsible for the death of the single man.

Yes, seems. All incidental of course. Both actions kill another human being while saving 5 others. I think the reason so many people struggle is when they realize that the outcome is the same and they are still killing a man in the first scenario.

What I find most interesting is not so much the inconsistency but the science behind why it seems that way and the mental calisthenics involved in the second dilemma.

 

[Loss Leader]

I think instead I'd challenge the disembodied voice saying "you can't call out to them" and TRY to call out to them. I'd probably do something, just not the thing that sacrifices a stranger.

My Crim professor used to call that "fighting the hypo." You have to accept the hypothetical situation as it is. The hypo is, by necessity, grossly oversimplified - just like the experiments in physics class of rolling a little car down variously steep ramps. There are no perfect inclined planes in the world or cars that can travel without friction, but for the sake of learning what the experiment sets out to prove, you must accept that there are. Otherwise, all you've proven is that you can't follow directions.

 

[The Atheist]

Download the file and listen. It turns out that science actually has something to say about the difficulties people have with #2.

(no, you don't get to change the hypothetical if you don't like it don't play along)

Just one thing about this - I'm not trying to argue the hypothetical situation - are people at all influenced by having to push a large man off a bridge? Wouldn't women, in particular, think, "Gosh, what if he pushes me off instead?"

 

[RandFan]

Just one thing about this - I'm not trying to argue the hypothetical situation - are people at all influenced by having to push a large man off a bridge? Wouldn't women, in particular, think, "Gosh, what if he pushes me off instead?"

Sure, I think and I hope that the question is sufficently posed to avoid that. I'm assuming that the scientists that performed the scans had some controls but that is a bit of assumption on my part. Otherwise that's a fair point.

 

[Squishua]

I really wish you would download it and listen.

All in good time RandFan.

When I listen the show I'll judge it then. It sounds interesting.

In the meantime, I'll focus on the moral dilemma.

Moral dilemma #1:
There is a train that is on a collision course for 5 men working on the tracks. There is a switch that will divert the train onto another track. However there is a single man working on that track. If you throw the switch the train will kill the other man. If you don't 5 men will die.

What do you do? Overwhelmingly people choose to throw the switch. It's not much of dilemma because the math makes sense. One man for 5.

Moral dilemma #2:
Same scenario only this time there is no switch and no alternate track. You are on a foot bridge that crosses over the tracks and there is nothing you can do... except there is a vary large man and if you push him off the bridge into the path of the train it will stop the train and save the 5 men.

What do you do? Here's the interesting part. People who are asked both questions will struggle with #2. Why? The math is the same. Both examples require killing 1 person to save 5 yet it is consistently problematic for people around the world regardless of culture, religion, lack of religion, social class, gender, etc.

Yes, those survey answers seem to make sense. Most people would also find it easier to buy a chicken from the meat department than kill it themselves, even though the math is the same.

All kidding aside, I can see how shoving a man in front of a train with your own hands is different than throwing a switch that will cause a train to hit the same man. The math may be the same, but the action required to prevent the other deaths is different. Throwing a switch is easy.

On the other hand, experiments by Stanley Milgram, which demonstrated unexpected cruelty and even giggling fits of sadistic glee (psychiatrists were shocked! ) in "normal" people ordered to administer electric shocks, reveal morals of a much more fluid nature.

I wonder what kind of answers these same people would have given if, prior to the experiment, they were surveyed on the moral dilemma of being ordered to administer electric shocks.

I bet they wouldn't have given the correct answer!

-Squish

 

[qayak]

Yes, seems. All incidental of course. Both actions kill another human being while saving 5 others. I think the reason so many people struggle is when they realize that the outcome is the same and they are still killing a man in the first scenario.

What I find most interesting is not so much the inconsistency but the science behind why it seems that way and the mental calisthenics involved in the second dilemma.

Yes, seems. All incidental of course. Both actions kill another human being while saving 5 others. I think the reason so many people struggle is when they realize that the outcome is the same and they are still killing a man in the first scenario.

What I find most interesting is not so much the inconsistency but the science behind why it seems that way and the mental calisthenics involved in the second dilemma.

I didn't listen to the whole podcast just to the two parts of the thought experiment. One thing that is left out is that in the first scenario, if you pull the lever and kill the one person, you can be charged with murder. If you do nothing and the five people die, you can't be charged. Obviously, in the second part, you could be charged with pushing the man to his death.

In the first part, it is not so clear that you will be a murderer to throw the switch but in the second part it is clear that your actions cause someone's death.

Some people think that the 5:1 ratio is acceptable but I think the family of the one will be rather upset as would the family of the man you pushed. Of course, five other families would think you were a hero.

On the other hand, many people will accept that 10:1 certainly is and many people will accept that, even when they are the individual that must die. Of course, it is a different story when it is a loved one who must die. Most won't accept that. they would prefer the physical pain of their own death over the mental pain of a loved one's death.

Interesting thought experiment!

 

[Huntster]

.....Interesting thought experiment!

Not for me.

I don't need such thoughts. Life and death come easily enough, and without the gamemanship that Hollywood likes to attached to it.

When the ◊◊◊◊ hits the fan, you don't know what you will do. "Pray that you won't be put to the test."

If you are, pray afterwards that you will be able to live with the memories long enough to raise your children.

 

[Marc L]

What do you do? Here's the interesting part. People who are asked both questions will struggle with #2. Why? The math is the same.

My internet connection's being wonky lately, so I can't download it. I've seen this moral dilemma before, though. In my personal opinion, pushing a man to his death is more immoral than throwing the switch. The math may be the same, but the intent is different.

In the first scenario (throwing the switch), you are only possibly causing the death of one person. With only a single person on the tracks, there is a much better chance of him moving out of the way in time. With five people, it becomes more difficult.

In the second scenario, you are forcing someone to die, with no opportunity to save them. You push the man, he dies, simple as that. Yes, you saved five other lives, but, unlike the first scenario, you definitely caused the death of one.

Marc

 

[andyandy]

I recommend

The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: And Ninety-nine Other Thought Experiments (Paperback)

if you like thought experiments.....and their analysis....

that one features

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pig-That-Wants-Eaten-Ninety-nine/dp/1862078556

it would make an excellent present

you can read a sample chapter here
(page 1)

 

[Darat]

All in good time RandFan.

When I listen the show I'll judge it then. It sounds interesting.

In the meantime, I'll focus on the moral dilemma.

Yes, those survey answers seem to make sense. Most people would also find it easier to buy a chicken from the meat department than kill it themselves, even though the math is the same.

All kidding aside,

...snip...

Why is that kidding? I think your point about killing by proxy is exactly the type of strange and irrational (in terms of logic) behavior that is being looked at by this type of study.

After all we should know (from empirical evidence) that we are not rational logical reasoning machines, therefore logic is only of limited use to explain why we behave as we do.

 

[andyandy]

I'd say that the reason we have trouble with pushing a man off a bridge, is because of the physical contact. Most of us accept some level of utilitarian reasoning. Disassociative utilitarianism - where we can avoid an emotional attatchment to those whose rights/needs are being superceded for the "greater good" is much easier for us to accept than empathetic utilitarianism - where we have formed an emotional bond with the subject....

for us h.saps the physical and emotional are pretty entwined
(indeed, a likely outgrowth from social grooming)

thus we pull the lever but baulk at touching the fat man