Untie the problem with the train: Would you kill one person to save five… [photo]

    Imagine that you are the pilot of a passing train…
    and you see an out of control wagon moving on a rail located five workers.
    The workers did not have the necessary time to avoid it. The only way to be saved is to download a switch in order to change rail car. But, on the other rail is another worker.
    You have a few seconds to decide: Will you let the five workers to be killed, or you will decide with your energy to kill one. What will you do?
    Would you kill one person to save five?
    Yes No
    This dilemma is a famous philosophical question called “the problem of the train.” Recently, a research team from the Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, used virtual reality technology to determine how they would respond to the people if faced with this problem.
    The two opposing philosophical approaches to this problem are the following: The first one suggests to kill a man in order to save the other five, while the second argues that we should not take any action that will harm someone’s fellow man, but you have to let God or fate decide.
    Many years of research have shown that the vast majority of people – usually around 90% – would choose to kill in order to save the five. But until recently there was a study that examines how people would react in a realistic situation with real live victims.
    Video representation
    The study involved 147 people, who are wearing the head device, virtual reality saw it in digital form of the potential victims. Yes, the potential victims were screaming as he approached the wagon.
    Also, placed electrodes on the skin of the 147 participants, in order to measure their reactions, as well as the involuntary reactions of the nervous system that are activated when we are faced with stressful situations.
    Finally, it was found that the 90% would decide to kill one to save five. The 133 pulled the switch.
    An interesting point is that the people most affected emotionally during the process, were less likely to decide to kill one of them. While those who were more cold-blooded and operated on the basis of logic, they decided to throw the switch.
    In another test, the research team changed the experiment so that if I diverted the train to kill one person, while if diverted to kill the five. In other words, this time the participants don’t need to make some more power, but they could simply allow the train to continue on its path in order to kill only one. Once again, 90% chose to save the five instead of one.

    However, it should be noted that this study may not respond fully to reality. First, a virtual state is just virtual: there are no legal consequences for the killing of a virtual person. In addition, studies have shown that when people were asked if they would use their hands to throw a man from a train to save five others, only about half said they would. Generally, we don’t want to spill on our hands. Finally – and most important -when the one person who should be killed to save the five, it’s your child, your parent or your brother, only about a third of respondents would choose to save the five. ( 2010, Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, ‘PEOPLE SAVE FIVE OVER ONE UNLESS THE ONE IS YOUNG, GENETICALLY RELATED, OR A ROMANTIC PARTNER’)
    What suggests all this to human nature? The evolution has turned us into brutal and selfish creatures. We can and do it in fractions of a second calculations that result in the murder of some other people – and in addition we change the decision if the risk is a part of our family.