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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:04AM (8 children)
The Trolley Problem typically involves a spherically useless choice in improbable situation which amount to mental masturbation at best.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 29 2017, @10:27AM (2 children)
kiled a fat man lol
Why not perform the same test with drunk people - I'm sure you'd get a similar response. I think they're measuring little more than our lizard brain. And the thing that makes us human is the stuff we evolved millions of generations after that.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 29 2017, @01:32PM (1 child)
Yes, it's contrived. That's why I included the link in the final paragraph -- lots of people recognize the problem is flawed for research, but it's become a sort of de facto "standard" for testing moral questions, which allows comparison with results of other studies. (It was never intended to be so: it was originally a bizarre scenario suggested in the professional philosophical literature to stand in for a host of more specific moral issues.)
As for measuring the "lizard brain," what's interesting about the results here is that generally NOT killing the fat man is considered a more "emotional" response, more of a "gut feeling" or perhaps "lizard brain" response (there are brain studies involving asking subjects this question that have verified that). Under time pressure here, though -- which generally bring out a more emotional response -- smartphone users were more likely to suggest killing the fat man. That's perhaps the most unexpected outcome here.
Anyhow, if we want another moral dilemma that gets at the same issue, we could look at an alternative scenario posed by one of the same philosophers decades ago, which sounded crazy then, but maybe more possible today:
(Score: 3, Insightful) by andersjm on Monday May 29 2017, @04:38PM
In the real world, the answer to the problem is this: "Since my ability to predict the future is imperfect, I should opt for a solution that does not have short-term ill effects, de-emphasising long-term consequences that may not come to be as predicted. Therefore, I should not push anyone onto the tracks."
So are those making the 'rational' choice actually more rational, or are they just more prone to buying into artificial hypotheticals?
(Score: 2) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Monday May 29 2017, @02:12PM
Well said
https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:28AM (1 child)
This is my solution [kym-cdn.com] to the trolley problem.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:22PM
I see, you'd make sure that everyone gets killed. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:18AM
I agree.
In the real world, the tough choice is: "do I record a vertical or a landscape video to put it on youtube and make multimillion views?"
Well, I concur that smartphones are involved.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:18PM
The trolley problem has a simple solution: Just half-flip the switch, so that the trolley will derail and kill nobody.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday May 29 2017, @07:21AM (5 children)
Always look for a third option. Throwing the switch halfway, or just as the first set of wheels passes, and causing the train to derail for example. Sucks for any people on the runaway train but the train has to be stopped, best it not also kill bystanders.
But yea, it is the rare situation where it can be considered acceptable to directly take an action that will kill someone that is innocent and it not be generally considered Evil. War being the notable counter example, but even then wanton destruction of enemy civilians for no military purpose is generally frowned upon. It is sad our failing civilization might be getting fuzzy on that concept. Or hopefully smartphone users just don't give as much of a damn about things on the phone, seeing it as just another social media quiz or something and having some lulz with it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:28AM (1 child)
There is no such thing as no military purpose. There is only stupid wasting of military resources on insignificant goals, or ill-conceived actions detrimental to own morale because of taboos being violated.
Civilians are primary target of any war, and it is so by design, by the very nature of war. Soldiers don't produce any of the things they use in battles (at least, not while they are fighting them) and without those things they wouldn't be soldiers.
Whoever is a civilian in a democracy at war is as legitimate military target as any because sovereignty is sourced from common civilians.
Whoever is not a drain on a society at war, or a rebel, even in a tyrannical society where one doesn't have a say, even a non-willing slave, even a game wild animal, is a legitimate military target.
Whoever is even as much as liked by those who are stakeholders in a war, is a legitimate military target.
Whose ever existence turning into nonexistence, or even mere suffering, affects a side in a war, is a legitimate military target for the opposing side in the war.
Many, or even most of these targets are off limits in war laws, but it is a law that will be exerted only upon the losing side.
Those laws are written only to declare a position of moral superiority, but are riddled with loopholes to give victors impunity.
So never take matter of war lightly, it is a matter of life and death for even those only marginally involved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:32PM
Even in teenage games like food fights, we used to say, "There are no non-combatants."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:23PM
"Always look for a third option. "
Yes, a thousand times this. Wherever there are two possible states, there is a third "state" in-between those two, that is potentially just as stable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30 2017, @03:20PM (1 child)
Congratulations, with five people tied to track A, and one person tied to track B, you have chosen option C: derail the trolley and send it hurtling on it's side into a dozen schoolchildren. You win!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:25PM
Nuke the trolley from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:52AM (1 child)
...ability to comprehend that correlation is not the same as causation. And no, putting a 'may' before it does not excuse this complete rubbish that passes for science in social science.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @08:51AM
Social science is itself rubbish. See also: religion, economics.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday May 29 2017, @08:49AM (5 children)
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])
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Monday May 29 2017, @09:04AM (1 child)
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
oh for fuck sake! s/break/brake/g
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday May 29 2017, @09:27AM (1 child)
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
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
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
(Score: 5, Funny) by inertnet on Monday May 29 2017, @09:25AM (4 children)
Time to finally start slimming because I don't want to be sacrificed to the Trolley god.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Monday May 29 2017, @01:54PM (2 children)
You selfish bastard. I'm having another pie right now, so that if I ever find myself in such a situation I can resolve the dilemma and be a big damn hero by sacrificing myself instead of some innocent bystander.
More likely: if anybody hits me with a car, I will be avenged by the repair bill...
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:07AM
I would like to think this would be my response as well, but, more likely, if I were actually faced with that situation, I would freeze until it was too late to do anything, and then I would berate myself about my inaction whenever I thought of it afterwards....
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:15AM
Repair bills. Forget about the cost, I was amazed the first time I saw how much damage is done to a car when it hits a pedestrian. Granted, today's autos are designed to crumple and fold on impact, thus reducing injuries to people inside the vehicle. Even so, it's amazing how much damage a body can do to a car.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:38PM
Have you got the Fat Man Blues ? Try the version by Marc Ribot...I find it mesmerizing, have on replay now.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Webweasel on Monday May 29 2017, @12:48PM
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Monday May 29 2017, @01:48PM (3 children)
You don't say?
Silly because you are given oracular knowledge of the situation and outcome of your actions. To take the action that saves the maximum number of lives is an absolute no-brainer when you have perfect knowledge of what the outcome would be. In real life, the problem will almost always be are you sure of the facts - what if you're wrong?
Heck, the problem is literally "on rails" - what better metaphor for absolute determinism could you wish for?
(In the autonomous vehicle case, the *correct* answer is probably, always going to be "keep control of the vehicle at all costs" because the computer has very limited understanding of the surroundings and a ton of tumbling, burning metal is guaranteed to make any situation worse).
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 29 2017, @03:22PM (2 children)
And yet, people make very different choices depending on how the problem is framed, e.g., studies consistently show a large majority tend to say to throw the switch, but only a small minority say deliberately killing a person is okay (even in more realistic scenarios than the "fat man"). Even though the outcomes are the same, a large number of people seem to perceive a moral difference.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Monday May 29 2017, @04:30PM (1 child)
Although Mr Logic says pulling the switch and sending the train to flatten the innocent bystander would be just as much "deliberately killing someone" as pushing the fat man, I don't think its particularly profound or surprising that people claim to be more reluctant to kill someone with their own hands than to kill someone by proxy.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if a court decided that the two cases represented different "degrees" of homicide!
However, my argument is that in any "real world" situation, all these considerations are going to be swamped by the uncertainty of what the outcome of each action is likely to be and the fear of killing an innocent person in vain.
The Autonomous Car versions are usually dreamed up by someone who has read way too much Asimov and has a completely unrealistic view of the ability of a simple machine learning system to "understand" a situation and predict consequences.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 29 2017, @11:31PM
I'm not disagreeing that uncertainty is a significant issue. I think part of the problem is that these scenarios are taken out of the context of a much larger argument that was trying to home in on how our moral "intuitions" work in different contexts that seem somewhat "equivalent" on the surface. It isn't just the fear of potentially killing someone "in vain" that's the issue here. If you really want to know the context, here's one of the original articles [ucsd.edu] that proposed these "thought experiments."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @01:55PM (1 child)
The "push the fat man" variation is too unrealistic and comical.
I prefer to follow-up the typical trolley problem (divert train to kill one person to save five) with a situation of organ transplantation or blood donation:
1. Six unconscious people require blood (all the same type) transfusions to survive.
Person A is first in line to receive the transfusion of the last of the remaining blood.
People B-F arrive very soon after Person A, but only need the same volume of blood as Person A to save all five of them.
2. Same as the above situation, but Person A is healthy. Blood could be harvested from Person A to save People B-F.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday May 30 2017, @09:36PM
Harvesting blood from a healthy person, if done correctly, does in no way endanger that person. Indeed, many people give blood out of free will to help others; I'm sure the majority of them wouldn't do it if it did serious harm to them.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Monday May 29 2017, @02:00PM (1 child)
The correct answer is "take out my cellphone and record the impending trainwreck". That sucker is sure to go viral, you might even get to be on TV.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1) by justinb_76 on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:19PM
+1, sad but true...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @02:17PM
Having some experience with mturk and other survey where these types of studies are done I would say it's very likely that the mobile version of the survey looked or behaved drastically different than the desktop version. I would not doubt at all that that could have some impact on the results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @03:14PM
1. do nothing. 5 people die
2. move switch/fat man 1 person dies
Both have consequences. Moral and lawful.
There is no good choice. The only 'good' choice is to minimize harm. Harm will however be a given.
a number of news outlets have portrayed the study as concluding that smartphone users are "more rational."
That is a given with 'the news'. They want to make it as sensational as possible. They do that by inflating the ego of their audience, themselves, and being dramatic. Much like a narcissist will love bomb you to abuse you later.
(Score: 2) by idiot_king on Monday May 29 2017, @04:27PM
In real life situations, most wouldn't have enough time to make a decision. My guess is that bystander syndrome would kick in for 90% of the "test subjects."
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @04:31PM (2 children)
If a jew had to make the decision, he would make sure to cause the maximum damage to human life, and then he would sit right next to his victims, wailing loudly, so a crowd will gather and he will ask them for money as he just lost all his family. He will go home rich.
Jews have no empathy for humans because jews are not human. Only a human (or a higher being) can feel for another human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @06:02PM (1 child)
Why is this rated Funny instead of Troll?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:25AM
Because it was likely written by a jew.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Monday May 29 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)
And what if fatty is some life-saving surgeon while those pedestrians are all stock-brokers, social scientist and lawyers? And what if you just got it wrong and you ended up killing a guy for nothing?
Do no harm. Not sure about the consequences? Do nothing. Want to play hero? Jump in front of that trolley yourself.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday May 30 2017, @08:31AM
Well, just ask the fat guy first.
- "are you a surgeon, scientist or something?"
- "nope, I am..."
* push *
- "... a devuan dev, AAAAAGGGHH!!!"
* splotch *
- "oops"
Account abandoned.