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

譯者: Songzhe Gao 審譯者: yue chen

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

假如你目擊一輛失控的電車 在軌道上衝刺

straight towards five workers who can't escape.

前方有五個來不及逃離的工人

You happen to be standing next to a switch

而你剛好在一個換軌器旁邊

that will divert the trolley onto a second track.

可以把電車導向第二個軌道

Here's the problem.

但問題來了

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

另一條鐵軌也有一位工人 就一位而已

What do you do?

你會怎麼辦？

Do you sacrifice one person to save five?

你會選擇捨一命救五命嗎？

This is the trolley problem,

這叫做「電車問題」

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

1967 年由菲力帕福特 提出的兩難倫理題目

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

這項題目迫使我們在兩者 都不好的情況下抉擇，因而成名

when there are no good choices.

我們會選擇最小的犧牲？

Do we pick the action with the best outcome

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

或是謹守不殺人的道德準則？

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

一項問卷顯示，約有 90% 的受測者

認為應該切換軌道

letting one worker die to save five,

以捨棄一人拯救其他五人

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

其他的研究包括 利用虛擬實境模擬電車問題

have found similar results.

顯示的結果還是一樣

These judgments are consistent with the philosophical principle of utilitarianism

這類思考依附著一項哲學理論： 效益主義（舊稱功利主義）

which argues that the morally correct decision

效益主義認為最合乎道德的選擇

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

應該符合最多人的最大利益

The five lives outweigh one,

五命多於一命

even if achieving that outcome requires condemning someone to death.

就算這項決定 使得他人死亡也一樣

But people don't always take the utilitarian view,

不過人們並不總是依循效益主義

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

我們把電車問題稍微修改一下

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

你站在一座橫跨鐵軌的橋上

as the runaway trolley approaches.

失控的電車衝了過來

這次沒有第二條軌道了

Now there's no second track,

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

不過有一位非常肥胖的人在你旁邊

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

如果你把他推下去 他的身軀能擋下電車

saving the five workers,

拯救後面的五位工人

but he'll die.

但是胖子會死

按照效益主義 結果應該與第一題一樣

To utilitarians, the decision is exactly the same,

lose one life to save five.

犧牲一命可以救五命

But in this case, only about 10% of people

不過，這次只有 10% 的人認為

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

可以把胖子推下橋

Our instincts tell us that deliberately causing someone's death

本能告訴我們，直接造成他人死亡

is different than allowing them to die as collateral damage.

與間接傷害導致死亡是不一樣的

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

原因很難解釋，但那感覺就是不對

This intersection between ethics and psychology

在倫理和心理的十字路口掙扎

is what's so interesting about the trolley problem.

正是電車問題的有趣之處

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

會出現不同答案的原因 是因為我們的是非概念

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

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

例如，更多的男性比女性

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

認為把胖子推下橋沒有錯

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

事先看過喜劇再受測的人也是如此

And in one virtual reality study,

一則虛擬實境研究顯示

people were more willing to sacrifice men than women.

多數人傾向犧牲男性高過女性

Researchers have studied the brain activity

專家們研究測驗者

of people thinking through the classic and bridge versions.

思考第一題與第二題時的大腦活動

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

兩個問題都會刺激大腦的意識決策區

and emotional responses.

和情緒反應區

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

不過，情緒反應區 對橋梁問題有較強的反應

So is activity in an area of the brain

大腦處理內在衝突的區塊也是如此

associated with processing internal conflict.

Why the difference?

為什麼會這樣？

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

其中一個解釋是

推下橋致死的感覺比較屬個人行為

activating an emotional aversion to killing another person,

會產生殺人的心理厭惡感

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

與符合邏輯的決定產生衝突感

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

一些哲學家和心理學家批判電車問題

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

他們認為此問題沒有結論 因為發生的真實性太低

that study participants don't take it seriously.

以至於受測者不會太認真思考

But new technology is making this kind of ethical analysis

但是新科技使這項倫理問題

more important than ever.

變得比以往更重要

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

例如自動駕駛系統需決策

like causing a small accident to prevent a larger one.

造成小型意外以避免大型車禍

Meanwhile, governments are researching autonomous military drones

同時，政府也在研究如何讓無人武器

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

自行決策如何在 可能傷及平民的環境中

to attack a high-value target.

順利攻擊目標

If we want these actions to be ethical,

如果行動必需合乎倫理

we have to decide in advance how to value human life

就得先定論人類生命的價值

and judge the greater good.

並評估最大的利益

So researchers who study autonomous systems

所以研究自主系統的科學家

are collaborating with philosophers

正在與哲學家合作

to address the complex problem of programming ethics into machines,

試圖把複雜的機器倫理學輸入電腦

which goes to show that even hypothetical dilemmas

這些結果告訴我們： 就算是假設性的難題

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

也能在現實世界碰撞出許多思辨