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

翻译人员: Di SUN 校对人员: Yulin Li

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

想象你眼前有一辆失控的电车， 飞速冲下轨道，

straight towards five workers who can't escape.

轨道前方有5个工人，难逃此劫。

You happen to be standing next to a switch

而你正巧站在道岔旁边,

that will divert the trolley onto a second track.

可以将电车引向另一条轨道上。

Here's the problem.

那么，问题来了,

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

另一条轨道上面也有工人， 但是只有一个。

这时候，你会怎么办？

What do you do?

Do you sacrifice one person to save five?

你会选择牺牲一个人来挽救五个人吗？

This is the trolley problem,

这就是我们所说的电车难题，

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

是由哲学家菲利帕福特 在1967年提出的道德困境问题。

这个问题能引起大家的兴趣 是因为它促使我们思考

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

when there are no good choices.

如何在困境之中做出抉择。

我们应该选择一个最好的结果，

Do we pick the action with the best outcome

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

还是坚守不做出任何伤害 他人生命的行为道德准则？

一项调查显示， 大约90%的参与者选择搬动道岔，

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

letting one worker die to save five,

牺牲一人来拯救五个人的生命，

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

其他试验，包括一个虚拟现实模拟研究

have found similar results.

也得出了相似的结果。

这与功利主义的观点相吻合，

These judgments are consistent with the philosophical principle of utilitarianism

即认为道德上正确的决定是依据

which argues that the morally correct decision

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

为最多的人提供最大的利益 这一原则做出的。

The five lives outweigh one,

五个人的生命总归大于一个人的生命，

even if achieving that outcome requires condemning someone to death.

即便是以牺牲一个人的生命为代价。

But people don't always take the utilitarian view,

然而人们并不都遵循功利主义的思想，

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

我们从电车难题的变式中就可以发现。

这一次，你站在天桥上，

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

as the runaway trolley approaches.

一辆失控的电车正朝你驶来。

此时并没有第二条轨道，

Now there's no second track,

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

但是你的旁边站着 一位体型庞大的男人。

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

如果你把他推下天桥， 他的身体能够让电车停下来，

saving the five workers,

拯救五个人的性命。

但是，那个男人会牺牲。

but he'll die.

对于功利主义者而言， 这一次选择与上一次相同，

To utilitarians, the decision is exactly the same,

lose one life to save five.

牺牲一个人来拯救另五个人。

But in this case, only about 10% of people

但是在这次试验中， 只有大约10%的参与者

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

认为可以把那个男人推落到轨道上。

Our instincts tell us that deliberately causing someone's death

直觉告诉我们， 故意造成他人死亡的行为

is different than allowing them to die as collateral damage.

不同于间接伤害造成死亡。

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

这属于人之常情， 其背后的原因很难解释清楚。

This intersection between ethics and psychology

正是道德伦理与心理学产生的交集

is what's so interesting about the trolley problem.

让电车难题变得非常有意思。

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

电车难题及其多种变式 揭示了我们在做出道德判断时

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

依赖于多种因素， 而非仅仅通过合乎逻辑的利弊权衡。

For example, men are more likely than women

比如说， 男性比女性更有可能选择

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

把那个男人推下天桥。

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

参加试验之前看了喜剧片的人， 也更可能做出同样的选择。

And in one virtual reality study,

一项虚拟现实研究发现，

people were more willing to sacrifice men than women.

相较女性，人们更愿意选择牺牲男性。

Researchers have studied the brain activity

研究人员在探究

of people thinking through the classic and bridge versions.

原始电车难题及其变式情形下 人们的脑部活动时发现，

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

两种情景都激发了 脑部负责有意识决策和

and emotional responses.

情绪反应的部位。

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

但是在变式情况中， 参与者的情绪反应更加激烈。

So is activity in an area of the brain

脑部负责处理

associated with processing internal conflict.

内部冲突的部位也更加活跃。

Why the difference?

为什么会产生这些变化？

一种解释是，把人推下桥致死 对个人的冲击更大，

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

activating an emotional aversion to killing another person,

激发了对于杀人行为的厌恶之情，

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

但是我们又很矛盾， 因为我们知道这是符合逻辑的选择。

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

一些哲学家和心理学家 对电车难题持批评态度。

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

他们认为这并没有揭示任何东西， 因为问题发生的前提非常不现实，

that study participants don't take it seriously.

以致于试验参与者并不会认真对待。

But new technology is making this kind of ethical analysis

然而，新科技正让这种道德分析

more important than ever.

变得比以往更加重要。

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

比如说， 无人驾驶的汽车可能会面临

like causing a small accident to prevent a larger one.

造成小事故来避免大事故的选择。

Meanwhile, governments are researching autonomous military drones

同时，政府在研发军用无人机

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

最终能够做出牺牲平民生命

to attack a high-value target.

以攻击高价值目标的决定。

If we want these actions to be ethical,

如果我们希望这样的行为 变得合乎道德，

we have to decide in advance how to value human life

那么我们必须首先决定 如何衡量人类生命的价值，

and judge the greater good.

并评判什么是符合多数人利益的。

So researchers who study autonomous systems

那么，独立系统的研究人员

are collaborating with philosophers

应该和哲学家一起处理

to address the complex problem of programming ethics into machines,

机器编程过程中遇到的道德难题，

which goes to show that even hypothetical dilemmas

而这正恰恰说明了假设中的困境，

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

最终也会与现实世界发生碰撞。