你会选择牺牲一个人来救五个人吗?

你会选择牺牲一个人来救五个人吗?
Would you sacrifice one person to save five? - Eleanor Nelsen

假设你正看着一辆失控的电车
Imagine you’re watching a runaway trolley
沿着轨道急速前行
barreling down the tracks
径直驶向五名无法逃脱的工人
straight towards five workerswho can’t escape.
这时你碰巧站在一个转辙器旁边
You happen to be standing next to a switch
只要启动转辙器 电车就会转到第二条轨道上
that will divert the trolley onto a second track.
那么问题来了
Here’s the problem.
那条轨道上也有一名工人 不过只有一名
That track has a worker on it, too,but just one.
你会怎么做?
What do you do?
你会不会为了救五个人而牺牲一个人呢?
Do you sacrifice one person to save five?
这就是“电车难题”
This is the trolley problem,
它是哲学家菲力帕•芙特
a version of an ethical dilemma
在1967年设计的道德困境的一个版本
that philosopher Philippa Foot devised in 1967.
它很受欢迎 因为它迫使我们思考
It’s popular because it forces us to think
如何在进退两难的情况下作出选择
about how to choose when there are no good choices.
我们应选择的究竟是结果最好的行为
Do we pick the actionwith the best outcome
还是坚持道德标准 不让另一个人死亡?
or stick to a moral code that prohibitscausing someone’s death?
在一项调查中 大约90%的受访者表示
In one survey, about 90 % of respondents
启动转辙器 杀死一个工人以救五个人
said that it’s okay to flip the switch,
是可以接受的行为
letting one worker die to save five,
其他的研究 包括对该难题的一项虚拟现实模拟
and other studies, including a virtualreality simulation of the dilemma,
也得出了相似的结果
have found similar results.
这类判断与效益主义的哲学原则一致
These judgments are consistent with thephilosophical principle of utilitarianism
主张从道德的角度来看
which argues thatthe morally correct decision
让最多人获得最大益处的决定 才是正确的决定
is the one that maximizes well-being for the greatest number of people.
五条人命比一条人命更重要
The five lives outweigh one,
就算必须害死一个人也一样
even if achieving that outcome requirescondemning someone to death.
但人们并非总是从效益主义出发
But people don’t always takethe utilitarian view,
只要稍微调整一下电车难题 便可见一斑
which we can see by changingthe trolley problem a bit.
这次 你正站在跨越轨道的一座桥上
This time, you’re standing on a bridgeover the track
而失控的电车正朝你驶来
as the runaway trolley approaches.
现在只有一条轨道
Now there’s no second track,
但是桥上有一个大胖子站在你边上
but there is a very large man on the bridge next to you.
只要把他推下桥 他的身体就会挡住电车
If you push him over,his body will stop the trolley,
这样就能救到那五名工人 但大胖子会死
saving the five workers, but he’ll die.
对效益主义者来说 这两个决定完全一样
To utilitarians,the decision is exactly the same,
都是为救五条人命而牺牲一条人命
lose one life to save five.
但是这次 只有大约10%的人表示
But in this case, only about 10% of people
把大胖子推下去轨道 是可以接受的行为
say that it’s OK to throw the manonto the tracks.
我们本能地知道 故意害死一个人
Our instincts tell us that deliberatelycausing someone’s death
不同于把他们的死当作附带损害
is different than allowing them to dieas collateral damage.
这么做感觉上是不对的 但理由却说不上来
It just feels wrong for reasonsthat are hard to explain.
道德和心理学的交叉
This intersection between ethicsand psychology
正是电车难题的有趣之处
is what’s so interestingabout the trolley problem.
这一难题的各种形式表明
The dilemma in its many variations
我们对于对和错的认知
reveal that what we think is right or wrong
不仅仅取决于对利和弊的理性权衡
depends on factors other than a logical weighing of the pros and cons.
比方说 相较于女性
For example, men are more likelythan women
男性更愿意把大胖子推下桥
to say it’s okay to push the manover the bridge.
进行这项思想实验前观看喜剧片段的人也一样
So are people who watch a comedy clip before doing the thought experiment.
此外 在一项虚拟现实研究中
And in one virtual reality study,
比起牺牲女性 人们更愿意牺牲男性
people were more willingto sacrifice men than women.
研究人员对思考这一经典和“桥”版本电车难题的人
Researchers have studied the brain activity of people thinking through
进行了脑活动的研究
the classic and bridge versions.
大脑中被这两个状况激活的区域
Both scenarios activate areas of the brain
与有意识的决策能力和情绪反应有关
involved in conscious decision-making and emotional responses.
但是“桥”版本引发的情绪反应更为强烈
But in the bridge version,the emotional response is much stronger.
大脑中负责处理内心冲突的区域
So is activity in an area of the brain
也会发生更强烈的活动
associated with processinginternal conflict.
两者之间为何有差别呢?
Why the difference?
有一种解释就是
One explanation is that
把人推向死亡的想法会让自己产生一些情绪
pushing someone to their death feels more personal,
从而抗拒杀人的动作
activating an emotional aversionto killing another person,
但是我们倍感矛盾
but we feel conflicted
因为我们知道 这还是逻辑上的选择
because we know it’s still the logical choice.
“电车学”遭到了一些哲学家和心理学家的批评
“Trolleyology” has been criticized by somephilosophers and psychologists.
他们认为 这一难题不能揭露什么
They argue that it doesn’t reveal anything
因为它的假设不切实际
because its premise is so unrealistic
以至于参与者们在研究中表现得不认真
that study participants don’t take it seriously.
但是新技术的发明
But new technology
让这类道德分析变得比以往更重要了
is making this kind of ethical analysis more important than ever.
比如说 自动驾驶汽车可能必须决定
For example, driver-less cars may have to handle choices
是否应该为避免发生严重车祸而酿成小车祸
like causing a small accidentto prevent a larger one.
与此同时 各国政府研究的自动驾驶军用无人机
Meanwhile, governments are researchingautonomous military drones
可能必须决定
that could wind up making decisions
该不该冒着平民死伤的风险
of whether they’ll risk civilian casualties
去攻击一个高价值的目标
to attack a high-value target.
要想做出有道德的行动
If we want these actions to be ethical,
我们就要事先决定
we have to decide in advance
如何判断人命的价值和更大范围的利益
how to value human life and judge the greater good.
因此 自动驾驶系统方面的研究人员
So researchers who studyautonomous systems
正在与哲学家合作
are collaborating with philosophers
以解决将道德编入机器程序这一复杂问题
to address the complex problemof programming ethics into machines,
由此可见 即便是假设性的难题
which goes to show thateven hypothetical dilemmas
也会和现实世界撞个正着
can wind up on a collision coursewith the real world.

0

发表评论