SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.