Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday May 29 2017, @06:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the deadly-trolleys dept.

A new study suggests that smartphone users may be more apt to employ utilitarian reasoning in resolving moral problems, rather than adhering to absolute moral principles.

The study, which is published in Computers in Human Behavior, is one of the first studies into the impact of the digital age on moral judgments, and suggests that moral judgments depend on the digital context in which a dilemma is presented and could have significant implications for how we interact with computers.

To investigate how moral judgements are affected by smartphones and PCs, the researchers recruited 1,010 people and presented them with a classic moral dilemma known as the 'Trolley Problem'.

The Trolley Problem typically involves a runaway trolley that will kill a certain number of people on the tracks, unless some action is taken. (It has recently come to broader attention in discussions of the ethics of autonomous vehicles.) In the original version, a switch is present that will allow the trolley to be diverted; but in doing so, it will kill an otherwise innocent bystander who is on the diversion track. In the so-called "fat man" variant, the dilemma allows the possibility of pushing an obese man in front of the trolley to stop it and save a larger number of people down the line.

Before reading further, stop for a moment to think of what you would do.

Studies generally show that many people use utilitarian reasoning and flip the switch in the first scenario to save the larger number of people. But fewer people in studies are generally willing to push the fat man onto the tracks. Philosophers consider this latter response to be a type of deontological reasoning, which values a moral principle above utilitarian calculations (i.e., it is wrong to murder someone, even to save others).

In the new study, participants were required to have both a smartphone and PC to participate. They were randomly assigned to use one or the other for the experiment. There was no statistically significant difference between their responses for the "switch" scenario to the trolley problem (80.9% for the smartphone users vs. 76.9% for the PC users), but a significantly larger number of smartphone users were willing to sacrifice the fat man (33.5% vs. 22.3% for PC users). When under time pressure in a follow-up experiment with 250 new participants, the fat man scenario difference increased (45.7% for smartphone users vs. 20% for PC users).

Dr Albert Barque-Duran, a researcher from the Department of Psychology at City, University of London and lead author of the study, said:

"What we found in our study is that when people used a smartphone to view classic moral problems, they were more likely to make more unemotional, rational decisions when presented with a highly emotional dilemma. This could be due to the increased time pressures often present with smartphones and also the increased psychological distance which can occur when we use such devices compared to PCs.

"Due to the fact that our social lives, work and even shopping takes place online, it is important to think about how the contexts where we typically face ethical decisions and are asked to engage in moral behaviour have changed, and the impact this could have on the hundreds of millions of people who use such devices daily."

Perhaps due to the lead author's characterization of utilitarian reasoning as "rational," a number of news outlets have portrayed the study as concluding that smartphone users are "more rational." (See, for example, coverage at The Daily Mail and Engadget.) However, the conclusion of the full study challenges that idea, noting that the enhanced distinction for smartphone users under time pressure does not accord with the theory that avoiding killing the fat man is only a quick "gut reaction" governed by emotions.

Alternatively, in the past some have argued that trolley problem research is flawed anyway because many respondents find the scenarios silly and may not take them seriously.

Link to original study


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday May 29 2017, @08:49AM (5 children)

    by Aiwendil (531) on Monday May 29 2017, @08:49AM (#517068) Journal

    In the switch-version I'd kill whoever group that didn't have high-visibility vests (unless you wear them you have no buisness being on the tracks - regardless of authorization).

    In the fat-man version the question is "will you expose yourself to legal retaliation from authorities?" - in most jurisdictions that allows killing (many don't) the only time when it is legally accepted to kill a person is when that person poses a threat to your (or your family's) life. So the question is "will you be a bystander or end up in jail for manslaughter/murder?" (Also - if a simple obese man will stop the object then the group is either within shouting distance or the trolley is going slow enough to most likely be set to stay ahead of the group [humans are crappy blockers against rolling stock])

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday May 29 2017, @09:04AM (1 child)

    by Aiwendil (531) on Monday May 29 2017, @09:04AM (#517073) Journal

    Should be pointed out - in most modern systems you'd be more likely to be able to cause the train to break[stop] then to switch tracks and most likely you'd only have the choice between break/no-break if in a position where you can both see the track and operate it. Heck, switching track for a runaway trolley without breaks would most likelt cause it to derail if going at a speed fast enough to be an issue and slow enough to give you time to chose and still be able to discern the people when still fast enough to not allow for warning.

    Also - if you have enough training to be able to operate the switch then you'd also have training in how to trigger the safety in the automatic traffic control

    And rolling stock breaks are designed that breaking is the default, and no-break is a very active process - so loss of control means breaking [often hard].

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @03:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @03:47PM (#517178)

      oh for fuck sake! s/break/brake/g

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday May 29 2017, @09:27AM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday May 29 2017, @09:27AM (#517085) Homepage
    Alternatively, you could read the article.

    The 5 on the track are tied to the track against their will. They didn't chose to be there, and quite possibly - heaven forfend - didn't dress for the occasion.

    And of course, you appear to not be familiar with the concept of a level crossing. I spacially intersect a railway line half a dozen times a week, and I, nor the thousands of other humans, nor tens of thousands of cars, cover ourselves with hi-viz before so doing.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday May 29 2017, @11:06AM

      by Aiwendil (531) on Monday May 29 2017, @11:06AM (#517093) Journal

      The article is queued, I complained about the dilemma in its generic form. (Just issue commands in a way that will trigger the ATC, normally it is the red button on the same panel as controls the switch (or more likely - the red square near a corner on the same screen)).

      But even if they are forced onto the track you only end up in the bystander/murderer scenario...

      I am aware of such crossings but all of them either have alarms, booms, are way past line of sight from nearest switch (or manual control), stoplights or just a sign that says "pass quickly". But if you do something as asinine as trying to cross the track without being reasonably sure you can cross it in a single swift movement you shouldn't enter the crossing - lots of accidents are caused by people failing to remember this (trying to beat the booms and then getting out of the car and try to lift the booms [instead of driving through them] are the common way to get killed). Which still means that anyone on the tracks without hi-viz vests didn't have any buisness being there.

  • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday May 29 2017, @03:07PM

    by Sulla (5173) on Monday May 29 2017, @03:07PM (#517160) Journal

    Before long fat people will qualify under the "he was coming right at me" defense because of their increased burden on the healthcare system

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam