你會選擇犧牲一個人來挽救五個人的生命嗎？

百度雲盤鏈接:https://pan.baidu.com/s/1To5NwWMV-ePPAdFnQkBU7A 密碼:noc9

音頻:

中英文稿:

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

想像你眼前有一輛失控的電車，飛速衝下軌道，

straight towards five workers who can"t escape.

軌道前方有5個工人，難逃此劫。

You happen to be standing next to a switch

而你正巧站在道岔旁邊,

that will divert the trolley onto a second track.

可以將電車引向另一條軌道上。

Here"s the problem.

那麼，問題來了,

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

另一條軌道上面也有工人，但是只有一個。

What do you do?

這時候，你會怎麼辦？

Do you sacrifice one person to save five?

你會選擇犧牲一個人來挽救五個人嗎？

This is the trolley problem,

這就是我們所說的電車難題，

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

是由哲學家菲利帕福特在1967年提出的道德困境問題。

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

這個問題能引起大家的興趣是因為它促使我們思考

when there are no good choices.

如何在困境之中做出抉擇。

Do we pick the action with the best outcome

我們應該選擇一個最好的結果，

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

還是堅守不做出任何傷害他人生命的行為道德準則？

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

一項調查顯示，大約90%的參與者選擇搬動道岔，

letting one worker die to save five,

犧牲一人來拯救五個人的生命，

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

其他試驗，包括一個虛擬現實模擬研究

have found similar results.

也得出了相似的結果。

These judgments are consistent with the philosophical principle of utilitarianism

這與功利主義的觀點相吻合，

which argues that the morally correct decision

即認為道德上正確的決定是依據

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

為最多的人提供最大的利益這一原則做出的。

The five lives outweigh one,

五個人的生命總歸大於一個人的生命，

even if achieving that outcome requires condemning someone to death.

即便是以犧牲一個人的生命為代價。

But people don"t always take the utilitarian view,

然而人們並不都遵循功利主義的思想，

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

我們從電車難題的變式中就可以發現。

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

這一次，你站在天橋上，

as the runaway trolley approaches.

一輛失控的電車正朝你駛來。

Now there"s no second track,

此時並沒有第二條軌道，

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

但是你的旁邊站著一位體型龐大的男人。

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

如果你把他推下天橋，他的身體能夠讓電車停下來，

saving the five workers,

拯救五個人的性命。

but he"ll die.

但是，那個男人會犧牲。

To utilitarians, the decision is exactly the same,

對於功利主義者而言，這一次選擇與上一次相同，

lose one life to save five.

犧牲一個人來拯救另五個人。

But in this case, only about 10% of people

但是在這次試驗中，只有大約10%的參與者

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

認為可以把那個男人推落到軌道上。

Our instincts tell us that deliberately causing someone"s death

直覺告訴我們，故意造成他人死亡的行為

is different than allowing them to die as collateral damage.

不同於間接傷害造成死亡。

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

這屬於人之常情，其背後的原因很難解釋清楚。

This intersection between ethics and psychology

正是道德倫理與心理學產生的交集

is what"s so interesting about the trolley problem.

讓電車難題變得非常有意思。

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

電車難題及其多種變式揭示了我們在做出道德判斷時

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

依賴於多種因素，而非僅僅通過合乎邏輯的利弊權衡。

For example, men are more likely than women

比如說，男性比女性更有可能選擇

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

把那個男人推下天橋。

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

參加試驗之前看了喜劇片的人，也更可能做出同樣的選擇。

And in one virtual reality study,

一項虛擬現實研究發現，

people were more willing to sacrifice men than women.

相較女性，人們更願意選擇犧牲男性。

Researchers have studied the brain activity

研究人員在探究

of people thinking through the classic and bridge versions.

原始電車難題及其變式情形下人們的腦部活動時發現，

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

兩種情景都激發了腦部負責有意識決策和

and emotional responses.

情緒反應的部位。

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

但是在變式情況中， 參與者的情緒反應更加激烈。

So is activity in an area of the brain

腦部負責處理

associated with processing internal conflict.

內部衝突的部位也更加活躍。

Why the difference?

為什麼會產生這些變化？

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

一種解釋是，把人推下橋致死對個人的衝擊更大，

activating an emotional aversion to killing another person,

激發了對於殺人行為的厭惡之情，

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

但是我們又很矛盾，因為我們知道這是符合邏輯的選擇。

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

一些哲學家和心理學家對電車難題持批評態度。

They argue that it doesn"t reveal anything because its premise is so unrealistic

他們認為這並沒有揭示任何東西，因為問題發生的前提非常不現實，

that study participants don"t take it seriously.

以致於試驗參與者並不會認真對待。

But new technology is making this kind of ethical analysis

然而，新科技正讓這種道德分析

more important than ever.

變得比以往更加重要。

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

比如說，無人駕駛的汽車可能會面臨

like causing a small accident to prevent a larger one.

造成小事故來避免大事故的選擇。

Meanwhile, governments are researching autonomous military drones

同時，政府在研發軍用無人機

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

最終能夠做出犧牲平民生命

to attack a high-value target.

以攻擊高價值目標的決定。

If we want these actions to be ethical,

如果我們希望這樣的行為變得合乎道德，

we have to decide in advance how to value human life

那麼我們必須首先決定如何衡量人類生命的價值，

and judge the greater good.

並評判什麼是符合多數人利益的。

So researchers who study autonomous systems

那麼，獨立系統的研究人員

are collaborating with philosophers

應該和哲學家一起處理

to address the complex problem of programming ethics into machines,

機器編程過程中遇到的道德難題，

which goes to show that even hypothetical dilemmas

而這正恰恰說明了假設中的困境，

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

最終也會與現實世界發生碰撞。

還有中英字幕、英文、中文、無字幕視頻（皆可緩存）和英文文稿，一起發布的。如果想要的，直接留言，我回復你。

如果你也喜歡TED視頻（包括短科普類視頻）,你也想學習英語,也許關注我是個不錯的選擇噢！

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！