Would you sacrifice one person to save five? - Eleanor Nelsen

Translator: Putri Hapsari Reviewer: Ade Indarta

Imagine you're watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks

Bayangkan Anda melihat sebuah kereta berjalan meluncur di jalurnya

straight towards five workers who can't escape.

menuju lima pekerja yang tak bisa menghindar.

You happen to be standing next to a switch

Anda kebetulan berdiri di samping tombol

that will divert the trolley onto a second track.

yang bisa mengalihkan kereta ke jalur ke dua.

Here's the problem.

Masalahnya,

That track has a worker on it, too, but just one.

ada satu orang di jalur itu. Hanya satu.

What do you do?

Apa yang Anda lakukan?

Do you sacrifice one person to save five?

Mengorbankan satu demi menyelamatkan lima?

This is the trolley problem,

Inilah problem kereta,

a version of an ethical dilemma that philosopher Philippa Foot devised in 1967.

dilema etis yang dikemukakan Philippa Foot pada tahun 1967.

It's popular because it forces us to think about how to choose

Pengandaian ini memaksa kita berpikir tentang cara memilih

when there are no good choices.

ketika tidak ada pilihan baik.

Do we pick the action with the best outcome

Apa kita memilih berdasar hasil terbaik

or stick to a moral code that prohibits causing someone's death?

atau tetap memegang moral untuk tidak membunuh?

In one survey, about 90% of respondents said that it's okay to flip the switch,

Dalam satu survei, sekitar 90% responden berkata tak apa menekan tombol,

letting one worker die to save five,

mengorbankan satu untuk lima.

and other studies, including a virtual reality simulation of the dilemma,

Studi lain yang menggunakan simulasi virtual dari masalah ini

have found similar results.

juga menunjukkan hasil yang sama.

These judgments are consistent with the philosophical principle of utilitarianism

Keputusan ini konsisten dengan prinsip utilitarian

which argues that the morally correct decision

yang berpendapat, keputusan yang tepat secara moral

is the one that maximizes well-being for the greatest number of people.

adalah yang mementingkan kesejahteraan banyak orang.

The five lives outweigh one,

Lima nyawa lebih penting dari satu,

even if achieving that outcome requires condemning someone to death.

meski ini berarti membuat satu orang meninggal.

But people don't always take the utilitarian view,

Tapi, tak semua orang berpikir seperti itu.

which we can see by changing the trolley problem a bit.

Misalnya skenario diubah sedikit.

This time, you're standing on a bridge over the track

Anda berdiri di atas jembatan, di atas rel

as the runaway trolley approaches.

di mana kereta sedang melaju kencang.

Now there's no second track,

Tidak ada jalur ke dua,

but there is a very large man on the bridge next to you.

tapi ada pria besar berdiri di samping Anda.

If you push him over, his body will stop the trolley,

Jika Anda mendorongnya jatuh, tubuhnya akan menghentikan kereta,

saving the five workers,

sehingga lima pekerja selamat.

but he'll die.

Tapi dia akan mati.

To utilitarians, the decision is exactly the same,

Bagi penganut utilitarian, keputusan ini sama

lose one life to save five.

mengorbankan satu demi lima.

But in this case, only about 10% of people

Dalam kasus ini, hanya sekitar 10% responden

say that it's OK to throw the man onto the tracks.

berpendapat tak apa menjatuhkan si pria besar.

Our instincts tell us that deliberately causing someone's death

Menurut insting, membunuh dengan sengaja itu

is different than allowing them to die as collateral damage.

beda dari membiarkan orang mati karena kecelakaan.

It just feels wrong for reasons that are hard to explain.

Rasanya salah karena sebab yang sulit dijelaskan.

This intersection between ethics and psychology

Pertemuan etika dan psikologi ini

is what's so interesting about the trolley problem.

membuat perumpamaan ini menarik.

The dilemma in its many variations reveal that what we think is right or wrong

Dilema ini mengungkap, apa yang kita pikir benar atau salah

depends on factors other than a logical weighing of the pros and cons.

bergantung pada faktor-faktor di luar logika pro dan kontra.

For example, men are more likely than women

Dibandingkan wanita, responden pria lebih cenderung

to say it's okay to push the man over the bridge.

berkata tak apa mendorong si pria besar.

So are people who watch a comedy clip before doing the thought experiment.

Demikian juga responden yang sebelumnya menonton video lucu.

And in one virtual reality study,

Dalam studi dengan realitas virtual,

people were more willing to sacrifice men than women.

responden lebih rela mengorbankan pria daripada wanita.

Researchers have studied the brain activity

Para peneliti meneliti aktivitas otak

of people thinking through the classic and bridge versions.

responden saat memikirkan problema ini.

Both scenarios activate areas of the brain involved in conscious decision-making

Kedua skenario mengaktifkan area otak terkait pengambilan keputusan sadar

and emotional responses.

dan respons emosional.

But in the bridge version, the emotional response is much stronger.

Bedanya, respons emosional lebih intens pada skenario jembatan.

So is activity in an area of the brain

Demikian pula aktivitas di area otak

associated with processing internal conflict.

yang biasa memproses konflik internal.

Why the difference?

Mengapa beda?

One explanation is that pushing someone to their death feels more personal,

Karena mendorong orang terasa lebih personal,

activating an emotional aversion to killing another person,

sehingga konflik emosional menjadi lebih kuat.

but we feel conflicted because we know it's still the logical choice.

Tapi kita tahu pilihan itu logis.

"Trolleyology" has been criticized by some philosophers and psychologists.

Dilema kereta ini dikritik oleh banyak filsuf dan psikolog.

They argue that it doesn't reveal anything because its premise is so unrealistic

Menurut mereka, premis teori ini tidak realistis

that study participants don't take it seriously.

sehingga responden pun tak serius berpendapat.

But new technology is making this kind of ethical analysis

Tapi teknologi baru membuat analisis etis ini

more important than ever.

menjadi sangat penting.

For example, driver-less cars may have to handle choices

Mobil otomatis harus memilih antara

like causing a small accident to prevent a larger one.

kecelakaan kecil atau kecelakaan besar.

Meanwhile, governments are researching autonomous military drones

Pemerintah meneliti drone militer otomatis

that could wind up making decisions of whether they'll risk civilian casualties

yang mungkin memilih menyebabkan kematian sipil

to attack a high-value target.

demi menyerang target besar.

If we want these actions to be ethical,

Jika kita ingin menggunakan etika,

we have to decide in advance how to value human life

kita harus tahu cara menilai nyawa manusia

and judge the greater good.

dan membuat pilihan terbaik.

So researchers who study autonomous systems

Para peneliti sistem otonom

are collaborating with philosophers

berkolaborasi dengan filsuf

to address the complex problem of programming ethics into machines,

untuk memrogram etika ke dalam mesin.

which goes to show that even hypothetical dilemmas

Ini membuktikan bahwa dilema hipotetis

can wind up on a collision course with the real world.

bisa bertabrakan dengan masalah nyata.