The Trolley Problem Revisited. An Exploratory Study
Recent studies by cognitive scientists demonstrate that people’s choices are more complex than the image provided by rational choice theory, and consistency of choice is not a characteristic to be expected in real-life situations. This exploratory paper attempts to isolate three variables in relation to decision making. Working with a sample (N=70) of university students in the U.S, and using the three variants of the Trolley Problem, the subjects’ responses are used to identify the similarities and differences based on the three dimensions. The participants were asked to respond to three hypothetical situations regarding a runaway trolley. Their decision in the first scenario could save a person’s life or let him be run over by the trolley. In the second scenario, their decision could either let one person die and save five lives or save one life and let five people be killed. These two scenarios require pulling a lever to switch the trolley from one track to another. The third scenario requires pushing an obese person in front of the runaway trolley to stop it from killing five persons. The paper presents the findings on the three variables: gender, age, and relational status.
Bakewell, S. (2013, November 22). Clang went the trolley. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/would‑you‑kill‑the‑fat‑man‑and‑the‑trolley‑problem.html
Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions (with commentary and reply). Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 17, 1–42.
Bleske‑Rechek, A., Nelson, L. A., Baker, J. P., Remiker, M. W. & Brandt, S. J. (2010). Evolution and the Trolley Problem: People save five over one unless the one is young, genetically related, or a romantic partner. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4(3), 115–127.
Bourget, D. & Chalmers, D. J. (2014). What do philosophers believe? Philosophical Studies, 170(3), 465–500.
Dzionek‑Kozlowska, J. & Rehman, S. N. (2017). Attitudes of economics and sociology students towards cooperation. A cross‑cultural study. Economics and Sociology, 10(4), 124–136. doi: 10.14254/2071–789X.2017/10–4/10
Erdle, S., Sansom, M., Cole, M., & Heapy, N. (1992). Sex differences in personality correlates of helping behavior. Personality and Individual Difference, 13(8), 931–936.
Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15.
Greene, J. D. & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgement work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517–523.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgement. Science, 293, 2105–2108.
Lanteri, A., Chelini, C. & Rizzello, S. (2008). An experimental investigation of emotions and reasoning in the Trolley Problem. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 789–804.
Prelec, D. & Loewenstein, G. (1991). Negative time preference. American Economic Review, 81(2), 347–352.
Rubinstein, A. (2006). A sceptic’s comment on the study of economics. Economic Journal, 116, C1–C9.
Singer, P. (2005). Ethics and intuitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 313–352. doi: 10.1007/s10892–005–3508‑y.
Thomson, J. J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the Trolley Problem. The Monist, 59, 204–217.
Thomson, J. J. (1985). The Trolley Problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395–1415.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. New Series, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Copyright (c) 2018 Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.