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.
假如你目擊一輛失控的電車 在軌道上衝刺 前方有五個來不及逃離的工人 而你剛好在一個換軌器旁邊 可以把電車導向第二個軌道 但問題來了 另一條鐵軌也有一位工人 就一位而已
What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five?
你會怎麼辦? 你會選擇捨一命救五命嗎?
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?
這叫做「電車問題」 1967 年由菲力帕福特 提出的兩難倫理題目 這項題目迫使我們在兩者 都不好的情況下抉擇,因而成名 我們會選擇最小的犧牲? 或是謹守不殺人的道德準則? 一項問卷顯示,約有 90% 的受測者
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.
認為應該切換軌道 以捨棄一人拯救其他五人 其他的研究包括 利用虛擬實境模擬電車問題 顯示的結果還是一樣
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.
這類思考依附著一項哲學理論: 效益主義(舊稱功利主義) 效益主義認為最合乎道德的選擇 應該符合最多人的最大利益 五命多於一命 就算這項決定 使得他人死亡也一樣
But people don't always take the utilitarian view, which we can see by changing the trolley problem a bit.
不過人們並不總是依循效益主義 我們把電車問題稍微修改一下
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.
你站在一座橫跨鐵軌的橋上 失控的電車衝了過來 這次沒有第二條軌道了 不過有一位非常肥胖的人在你旁邊 如果你把他推下去 他的身軀能擋下電車 拯救後面的五位工人 但是胖子會死
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.
按照效益主義 結果應該與第一題一樣 犧牲一命可以救五命 不過,這次只有 10% 的人認為 可以把胖子推下橋 本能告訴我們,直接造成他人死亡 與間接傷害導致死亡是不一樣的 原因很難解釋,但那感覺就是不對
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.
在倫理和心理的十字路口掙扎 正是電車問題的有趣之處 會出現不同答案的原因 是因為我們的是非概念 是用其他因素作出的判斷 而非邏輯思考的對與錯
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.
例如,更多的男性比女性 認為把胖子推下橋沒有錯 事先看過喜劇再受測的人也是如此 一則虛擬實境研究顯示 多數人傾向犧牲男性高過女性
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.
專家們研究測驗者 思考第一題與第二題時的大腦活動 兩個問題都會刺激大腦的意識決策區 和情緒反應區 不過,情緒反應區 對橋梁問題有較強的反應 大腦處理內在衝突的區塊也是如此 為什麼會這樣? 其中一個解釋是 推下橋致死的感覺比較屬個人行為 會產生殺人的心理厭惡感 與符合邏輯的決定產生衝突感
"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.
一些哲學家和心理學家批判電車問題 他們認為此問題沒有結論 因為發生的真實性太低 以至於受測者不會太認真思考
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.
但是新科技使這項倫理問題 變得比以往更重要 例如自動駕駛系統需決策 造成小型意外以避免大型車禍 同時,政府也在研究如何讓無人武器 自行決策如何在 可能傷及平民的環境中 順利攻擊目標 如果行動必需合乎倫理 就得先定論人類生命的價值 並評估最大的利益
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.
所以研究自主系統的科學家 正在與哲學家合作 試圖把複雜的機器倫理學輸入電腦 這些結果告訴我們: 就算是假設性的難題 也能在現實世界碰撞出許多思辨