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

Bi žrtvovali enega človeka, da rešite pet ljudi? - Eleanor Nelsen

Translator: Klavdija Cernilogar Reviewer: Matej Divjak

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

Predstavljajte si vlak, ki brez nadzora drvi po tirih,

straight towards five workers who can't escape.

naravnost proti petim ujetim delavcem.

You happen to be standing next to a switch

Slučajno stojite poleg stikala,

ki lahko vlak preusmeri na drugi tir.

that will divert the trolley onto a second track.

Here's the problem.

In tu je problem.

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

Tudi na tem tiru je delavec, a samo eden.

Kaj storiti?

What do you do?

Do you sacrifice one person to save five?

Boste žrtvovali eno življenje, da jih rešite pet?

This is the trolley problem,

To je problem z vlakom,

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

oblika etične dileme, ki jo je filozofinja Philippa Foot razvila leta 1967.

Ta znana dilema nas prisili v razmislek o tem, kako izbrati

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

when there are no good choices.

med samimi slabimi možnostmi.

Bomo izbrali rešitev z najboljšim izidom

Do we pick the action with the best outcome

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

ali se držali moralne zapovedi, ki prepoveduje usmrtitev drugega?

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

V neki študiji se je okoli 90 odstotkov udeležencev strinjalo z uporabo stikala,

letting one worker die to save five,

ki bi ubilo enega delavca in jih rešilo pet;

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

druge študije, tudi virtualne simulacije te dileme,

have found similar results.

so prišle do podobnih zaključkov.

Take sodbe so v skladu s filozofskim načelom utilitarizma,

These judgments are consistent with the philosophical principle of utilitarianism

ki pravi, da je moralno pravilna odločitev

which argues that the morally correct decision

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

tista, ki prinese največ blaginje največjemu številu ljudi.

The five lives outweigh one,

Pet življenj odtehta eno,

even if achieving that outcome requires condemning someone to death.

čeprav to pomeni, da nekoga obsodimo na smrt.

But people don't always take the utilitarian view,

A ljudje ne razmišljajo vedno utilitarno,

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

kar vidimo, če dilemo z vlakom malo spremenimo.

Tokrat stojite na mostu nad tirom,

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

as the runaway trolley approaches.

ko se vlak približuje.

Now there's no second track,

Ni drugega tira,

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

a poleg vas stoji zelo velik možak.

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

Če ga pahnete preko mostu, bo njegovo telo ustavilo vlak

saving the five workers,

in rešilo pet delavcev,

sam pa bo umrl.

but he'll die.

Za utilitariste je odločitev enaka,

To utilitarians, the decision is exactly the same,

lose one life to save five.

izgubiti eno življenje in jih rešiti pet.

But in this case, only about 10% of people

A v tem primeru jih je samo kakih 10 odstotkov dejalo,

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

da je prav vreči možaka na tir.

Our instincts tell us that deliberately causing someone's death

Instinkt nam pove, da je namerna povzročitev smrti

is different than allowing them to die as collateral damage.

drugačna od tega, da nekdo umre kot kolateralna škoda.

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

Zdi se narobe, a ni lahko pojasniti, zakaj.

This intersection between ethics and psychology

Stik med etiko in psihologijo

is what's so interesting about the trolley problem.

je najbolj zanimiva stvar pri dilemi z vlakom.

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

Dilema in njene variacije razkrijejo, da naše videnje pravilnega in napačnega

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

ni odvisno samo od logičnega tehtanja dejavnikov za in proti.

For example, men are more likely than women

Moški, na primer, pogosteje od žensk

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

pravijo, da je v redu pahniti možaka preko mostu.

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

Prav tako ljudje, ki so pred odločitvijo gledali skeč.

And in one virtual reality study,

V neki študiji z virtualno resničnostjo

people were more willing to sacrifice men than women.

so ljudje lažje žrtvovali moškega kot žensko.

Researchers have studied the brain activity

Raziskave so proučevale delovanje možganov

of people thinking through the classic and bridge versions.

ljudi, ki so se ukvarjali s klasično dilemo in tisto z mostom.

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

Oba scenarija aktivirata dele možganov, povezane z zavestnim odločanjem

and emotional responses.

in čustvenimi odzivi.

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

A v verziji z mostom je čustveni odziv veliko močnejši.

So is activity in an area of the brain

Večja je tudi dejavnost dela možganov,

associated with processing internal conflict.

povezanega z reševanjem notranjih konfliktov.

Why the difference?

Zakaj ta razlika?

Ena razlaga pravi, da je poslati nekoga v smrt bolj osebno,

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

activating an emotional aversion to killing another person,

da sproži čustveno nasprotovanje uboju drugega,

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

a konflikt je v tem, da vemo, da je to logična rešitev.

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

Vlakologijo so nekateri filozofi in psihologi kritizirali.

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

Trdijo, da ne razkriva ničesar, saj so njene predpostavke tako nerealne,

that study participants don't take it seriously.

da je udeleženci ne jemljejo resno.

But new technology is making this kind of ethical analysis

A zaradi nove tehnologije je tovrstna etična analiza

more important than ever.

pomembnejša kot kdajkoli prej.

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

Vozila brez voznika bodo morda morala sprejemati odločitve,

like causing a small accident to prevent a larger one.

kot so denimo povzročitev majhne nesreče, da bi preprečili večjo.

Vlade pa raziskujejo avtonomne vojaške drone,

Meanwhile, governments are researching autonomous military drones

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

ki bi lahko odločali o tem, ali bodo tvegali civilne žrtve,

to attack a high-value target.

da bi napadli pomembno tarčo.

If we want these actions to be ethical,

Če naj bodo te odločitve etične,

we have to decide in advance how to value human life

se moramo vnaprej odločiti, kako vrednotiti človeško življenje

and judge the greater good.

in oceniti, kaj je bolje.

So researchers who study autonomous systems

Raziskovalci, ki se ukvarjajo z avtonomnimi sistemi,

are collaborating with philosophers

sodelujejo s filozofi

to address the complex problem of programming ethics into machines,

pri zapletenem vprašanju programiranja etike v naprave,

which goes to show that even hypothetical dilemmas

kar kaže, da celo hipotetične dileme

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

lahko trčijo v vprašanja resničnega sveta.