Imagine you're watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks straight towards five workers who can't escape. You happen to be standing next to a switch that will divert the trolley onto a second track. Here's the problem. That track has a worker on it, too, but just one.
Bayangkan Anda melihat sebuah kereta berjalan meluncur di jalurnya menuju lima pekerja yang tak bisa menghindar. Anda kebetulan berdiri di samping tombol yang bisa mengalihkan kereta ke jalur ke dua. Masalahnya, ada satu orang di jalur itu. Hanya satu.
What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five?
Apa yang Anda lakukan? Mengorbankan satu demi menyelamatkan lima?
This is the trolley problem, a version of an ethical dilemma that philosopher Philippa Foot devised in 1967. It's popular because it forces us to think about how to choose when there are no good choices. Do we pick the action with the best outcome or stick to a moral code that prohibits causing someone's death?
Inilah problem kereta, dilema etis yang dikemukakan Philippa Foot pada tahun 1967. Pengandaian ini memaksa kita berpikir tentang cara memilih ketika tidak ada pilihan baik. Apa kita memilih berdasar hasil terbaik atau tetap memegang moral untuk tidak membunuh?
In one survey, about 90% of respondents said that it's okay to flip the switch, letting one worker die to save five, and other studies, including a virtual reality simulation of the dilemma, have found similar results.
Dalam satu survei, sekitar 90% responden berkata tak apa menekan tombol, mengorbankan satu untuk lima. Studi lain yang menggunakan simulasi virtual dari masalah ini juga menunjukkan hasil yang sama.
These judgments are consistent with the philosophical principle of utilitarianism which argues that the morally correct decision is the one that maximizes well-being for the greatest number of people. The five lives outweigh one, even if achieving that outcome requires condemning someone to death.
Keputusan ini konsisten dengan prinsip utilitarian yang berpendapat, keputusan yang tepat secara moral adalah yang mementingkan kesejahteraan banyak orang. Lima nyawa lebih penting dari satu, meski ini berarti membuat satu orang meninggal.
But people don't always take the utilitarian view, which we can see by changing the trolley problem a bit.
Tapi, tak semua orang berpikir seperti itu. Misalnya skenario diubah sedikit.
This time, you're standing on a bridge over the track as the runaway trolley approaches. Now there's no second track, but there is a very large man on the bridge next to you. If you push him over, his body will stop the trolley, saving the five workers, but he'll die.
Anda berdiri di atas jembatan, di atas rel di mana kereta sedang melaju kencang. Tidak ada jalur ke dua, tapi ada pria besar berdiri di samping Anda. Jika Anda mendorongnya jatuh, tubuhnya akan menghentikan kereta, sehingga lima pekerja selamat. Tapi dia akan mati.
To utilitarians, the decision is exactly the same, lose one life to save five. But in this case, only about 10% of people say that it's OK to throw the man onto the tracks. Our instincts tell us that deliberately causing someone's death is different than allowing them to die as collateral damage. It just feels wrong for reasons that are hard to explain.
Bagi penganut utilitarian, keputusan ini sama mengorbankan satu demi lima. Dalam kasus ini, hanya sekitar 10% responden berpendapat tak apa menjatuhkan si pria besar. Menurut insting, membunuh dengan sengaja itu beda dari membiarkan orang mati karena kecelakaan. Rasanya salah karena sebab yang sulit dijelaskan.
This intersection between ethics and psychology is what's so interesting about the trolley problem. The dilemma in its many variations reveal that what we think is right or wrong depends on factors other than a logical weighing of the pros and cons.
Pertemuan etika dan psikologi ini membuat perumpamaan ini menarik. Dilema ini mengungkap, apa yang kita pikir benar atau salah bergantung pada faktor-faktor di luar logika pro dan kontra.
For example, men are more likely than women to say it's okay to push the man over the bridge. So are people who watch a comedy clip before doing the thought experiment. And in one virtual reality study, people were more willing to sacrifice men than women.
Dibandingkan wanita, responden pria lebih cenderung berkata tak apa mendorong si pria besar. Demikian juga responden yang sebelumnya menonton video lucu. Dalam studi dengan realitas virtual, responden lebih rela mengorbankan pria daripada wanita.
Researchers have studied the brain activity of people thinking through the classic and bridge versions. Both scenarios activate areas of the brain involved in conscious decision-making and emotional responses. But in the bridge version, the emotional response is much stronger. So is activity in an area of the brain associated with processing internal conflict. Why the difference? One explanation is that pushing someone to their death feels more personal, activating an emotional aversion to killing another person, but we feel conflicted because we know it's still the logical choice.
Para peneliti meneliti aktivitas otak responden saat memikirkan problema ini. Kedua skenario mengaktifkan area otak terkait pengambilan keputusan sadar dan respons emosional. Bedanya, respons emosional lebih intens pada skenario jembatan. Demikian pula aktivitas di area otak yang biasa memproses konflik internal. Mengapa beda? Karena mendorong orang terasa lebih personal, sehingga konflik emosional menjadi lebih kuat. Tapi kita tahu pilihan itu logis.
"Trolleyology" has been criticized by some philosophers and psychologists. They argue that it doesn't reveal anything because its premise is so unrealistic that study participants don't take it seriously.
Dilema kereta ini dikritik oleh banyak filsuf dan psikolog. Menurut mereka, premis teori ini tidak realistis sehingga responden pun tak serius berpendapat.
But new technology is making this kind of ethical analysis more important than ever. For example, driver-less cars may have to handle choices like causing a small accident to prevent a larger one. Meanwhile, governments are researching autonomous military drones that could wind up making decisions of whether they'll risk civilian casualties to attack a high-value target. If we want these actions to be ethical, we have to decide in advance how to value human life and judge the greater good.
Tapi teknologi baru membuat analisis etis ini menjadi sangat penting. Mobil otomatis harus memilih antara kecelakaan kecil atau kecelakaan besar. Pemerintah meneliti drone militer otomatis yang mungkin memilih menyebabkan kematian sipil demi menyerang target besar. Jika kita ingin menggunakan etika, kita harus tahu cara menilai nyawa manusia dan membuat pilihan terbaik.
So researchers who study autonomous systems are collaborating with philosophers to address the complex problem of programming ethics into machines, which goes to show that even hypothetical dilemmas can wind up on a collision course with the real world.
Para peneliti sistem otonom berkolaborasi dengan filsuf untuk memrogram etika ke dalam mesin. Ini membuktikan bahwa dilema hipotetis bisa bertabrakan dengan masalah nyata.