# data[].attributes.body
Yesterday’s class discussion was about the trolley cart dilemma. We were asked how we would react if we were in the scenario of a runaway trolley that was headed toward 5 workers in the tracks. We could pull a leaver that would redirect the trolley to a track that had only one worker. We were essentially asked to kill one or five people. The most interesting part of the class was hearing other people’s opinion about how they would act given the situation. Personally, I would pull the lever and the kill the one man, and saving the other five workers. Admittedly, the scenario would be completely different if I knew someone in those tracks. If the person by themselves were someone I knew, I would choose to kill the 5 strangers.

The scenario was slightly changed and we were asked if we would push someone off a bridge into the tracks to stop the trolley. Even though you would still be killing one person and saving five, many people said they couldn’t do it. I would also not be able to do that. The people working on the tracks are already in the situation. It would be unfair to sacrifice someone who weren’t already in the situation.

The main question I have is: If we were to disregard the fact that the man pushed off the bridge would have to be of a certain body type, and any person thrown on the tracks would stop the train. Would you sacrifice your life and throw yourself at the tracks, push someone onto the tracks, or choose to let the five workers die?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/h8q/the_unselfish_trolley_problem/

The link above is an article that also questions the topic of self sacrifice.

# data[].attributes.body
In class, most people chose the utilitarian approach and would rather kill the one person over the  5. Although I understand that you would save more lives that way, it's still a very difficult conclusion to come to. I can't grasp placing more value one one person's life than the others. Everybody's life is of equal value. I know somebody had mentioned, what if it was the President of the United States on the tracks. Depending on who it is, wouldn't their life have more value if they could save more people in the end. This question really had me re-evaluating my perspective. Even if it was an important person on those second tracks, I still can't fathom putting more value on one human life than the other. People chose one or the other even in the hypothetical situation. I would wish there was a way to jam the trolley tracks somehow and save everybody, but that is as unrealistic as this situation.Well...that's what I thought until reading this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/trolley-problem-history-psychology-morality-driverless-cars/409732/

In the article they examine how the situation is very realistic in the future if self driving cars are the future. The cars would have to choose is some cases to save the lives of either pedestrians or the passenger in the car. I had put off the dilemma as not being that realistic, but it in fact is. Especially in the near future.

# data[].attributes.body
I found it interesting that during our class discussion majority of the class had no problem with pulling the lever and killing one person to save 5. However, when it actually came to having to push a person to save the 5 they wouldn't be able to do it. I myself probably wouldn't be able to bring myself to push that person because then that death would be on me. Even though in both scenarios, the killing of one person is essentially the same but what is it that makes us feel this sense of guilt or responsibility? Is it that we physically caused harm to another or is it something else? According to this article "Murder and Your Brain", we are coded to feel guilt. This may be the reason why so many people are comfortable with pulling a lever that leads to a man's death opposed to pushing a man in front of a train and killing them.  http://time.com/3816212/brain-murder-morality/

# data[].attributes.body
I found it very interesting that most people would pull the lever and kill the one worker on the tracks to save the other five but when it came to pushing a man right in front of them on the tracks to save the five people most would not do it. If you think about it, it really is the same situation but one is probably more effected by the second scenario because you’re pushing an unsuspecting, innocent person and ending their life. It is definitely easier to say you would pull the lever because you’re at a distance and probably would not affect you as much as pushing a man right in front of you onto trolley tracks. I believe that many people would pull the lever instead of pushing a man onto the tracks because pulling a lever much is less emotionally disturbing than pushing an innocent person in front of a moving trolley. As soon as we started discussing this scenario in class, it reminded me exactly of a similar question my psychology professor asked us last semester. Imagine that you’re a doctor and you had two patients that needed a liver transplant. One is a middle-aged adult that is the sole provider for their family but is also an alcoholic and the other is an innocent child who has their whole life ahead of them. You can only give the liver to one of them and whoever does not get the liver dies. Who would you give the liver to? I found a website that had the results of a pole asking almost the exact same question and 65% of people say that that child should get the liver over the alcoholic. I find it interesting seeing both viewpoints on this topic. Some people argue that the child should get the liver because the potential that a child’s life may hold is more promising than someone who has already shown the world what they will do with their life. While other people argue that the adult has people who depend on them and maybe getting a new liver will make them realize that they need to make a change.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-an-alcoholic-be-granted-a-liver-transplant-over-a-child-despite-the-length-of-the-wait?nsort=2&ysort=5

# data[].attributes.body
The part of the discussion that interested me the most was that, although the dilemma was quite similar, people responded in different ways to the ethical issue. They fully supported one side of the argument, but were quick to go back on their word with a quick shift of the situation. This really made me realize how ethics is so dependent on the situation and emotions, not necessarily reason.

A question that I thought about throughout the discussion was how people with different beliefs might answer the question. If you are a believer in fate, for instance, you may opt to not pull the lever or push the person because you might believe that it is the destiny of those 5 workers to be hit by the train. On the contrary to this, however, one could also argue that it was fate that you were placed next to the lever in order to save those same 5 lives.

In order to attempt to answer this question, I researched a religious approach to the ethical dilemma and found a scholarly attempt at formulating a Buddhist response.  Unfortunately, this source only raised more questions for me. However, it did reveal some new perspectives to the dilemma in terms of the wholesomeness of your actions. For example, if you focus on saving the greater number, your intentions are either saving them or not killing them (these are different things!). If you choose to kill the five workers, this perspective says that it does not count as unwholesome, because it was not your intention to kill them. If you chose to switch tracks, however, you are intending to kill the one, which is unwholesome.

Ultimately, this discussion made me realize that a large portion of decision-making is based off of how our actions would make us feel. While we do consider what is ethical, we are the ones we will have to live with after action is taken.

Source:

http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2014/01/Pandita-Trolley-final.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Personally i found it very disturbing that people could fathom the action of pushing an innocent bystander who happen to be on top of the bridge in the way of the trolley.  It is indeed the same action as pulling the lever to a degree, but put in either situation I don't think I could take action. In the hopes of one of the 5 people taking a peek up and seeing the trolley i wouldn't pull the lever and the action of taking a life with my own hands i couldn't take part either.  My question now is why do other peoples actions need to be justified by someone else? This meaning if i morally think it was right to take one life to save 5, why is that bad?
I found a video of a toddler watching a woman drop what seemed to be beads in a cup. This toddler was amused by this until another woman arrived.  This woman after they dropped the beads in the cup again should outward anger and yelled.  Next, the baby was given the opportunity to put them in the cup for himself and couldn't quite take his eyes off the lady and was scared to do it.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FC4qRD1vn8

# data[].attributes.body
What I found to be the most interesting part of the trolley car discussion was hearing everyone in the class’s different opinions on the situation, and their reasoning behind whether they would pull the lever/push the large man. As soon as I heard the trolley car dilemma I made up my mind right away on what I personally would do in the situation, but then hearing what other’s in the class would do was very eye opening. I understood where the people who said they would push the large man in order to save more people were coming from, but my question towards that was whether or not that should be a decision they can make? The people in danger of being killed by the train were somehow put into that situation (their job or other reasoning), and the tragic event was going to happen whether you were present or not. The man would be facing death only if you were present and chose to push him onto the tracks. Therefore the people going to die on the tracks were not put there by you, but the man would be. If there are ways to save more people than less whom are already on the tracks, wouldn’t that would be a decision you could make but not placing another human being onto the tracks even if it were to save more lives? www.dailymail.co.uk goes into looking at this dilemma. This article supports the question of whether sacrificing one innocent life to save more lives is moral. The article says, "But deontological morality focus on the idea that certain things are wrong - like killing an innocent person - even if it can help more people." This article supports the general question of if sacrificing an innocent person is moral if it saves more lives.

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
What I found to be the most interesting part of the trolley car discussion was hearing everyone in the class’s different opinions on the situation, and their reasoning behind whether they would pull the lever/push the large man. As soon as I heard the trolley car dilemma I made up my mind right away on what I personally would do in the situation, but then hearing what other’s in the class would do was very eye opening. I understood where the people who said they would push the large man in order to save more people were coming from, but my question towards that was whether or not that should be a decision they can make? The people in danger of being killed by the train were somehow put into that situation (their job or other reasoning), and the tragic event was going to happen whether you were present or not. The man would be facing death only if you were present and chose to push him onto the tracks. Therefore the people going to die on the tracks were not put there by you, but the man would be. If there are ways to save more people than less whom are already on the tracks, wouldn’t that would be a decision you could make but not placing another human being onto the tracks even if it were to save more lives? www.dailymail.co.uk goes into looking at this dilemma. This article supports the question of whether sacrificing one innocent life to save more lives is moral. The article says, "But deontological morality focus on the idea that certain things are wrong - like killing an innocent person - even if it can help more people." So if you are the one killing Hebert innocent person, where does that put you?

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
What I found to be the most interesting part of the trolley car discussion was hearing everyone in the class’s different opinions on the situation, and their reasoning behind whether they would pull the lever/push the large man. As soon as I heard the trolley car dilemma I made up my mind right away on what I personally would do in the situation, but then hearing what other’s in the class would do was very eye opening. I understood where the people who said they would push the large man in order to save more people were coming from, but my question towards that was whether or not that should be a decision they can make? The people in danger of being killed by the train were somehow put into that situation (their job or other reasoning), and the tragic event was going to happen whether you were present or not. The man would be facing death only if you were present and chose to push him onto the tracks. Therefore the people going to die on the tracks were not put there by you, but the man would be. If there are ways to save more people than less whom are already on the tracks, wouldn’t that would be a decision you could make but not placing another human being onto the tracks even if it were to save more lives? www.dailymail.co.uk goes into looking at this dilemma. This article supports the question of whether sacrificing one innocent life to save more lives is moral. But deontological morality focus on the idea that certain things are wrong - like killing an innocent person - even if it can help more people.

# data[].attributes.headline
What I found to be the most interesting part of the trolley car discussion was hearing everyone in the class’s different opinions on the situation, and their reasoning behind whether they would pull the lever/push the large man. As soon as I heard the trolley car dilemma I made up my mind right away on what I personally would do in the situation, but then hearing what other’s in the class would do was very eye opening. I understood where the people who said they would push the large man in order to save more people were coming from, but my question towards that was whether or not that should be a decision they can make? The people in danger of being killed by the train were somehow put into that situation (their job or other reasoning), and the tragic event was going to happen whether you were present or not. The man would be facing death only if you were present and chose to push him onto the tracks. Therefore the people going to die on the tracks were not put there by you, but the man would be. If there are ways to save more people than less whom are already on the tracks, wouldn’t that would be a decision you could make but not placing another human being onto the tracks even if it were to save more lives? www.dailymail.co.uk goes into looking at this dilemma. This article supports the question of whether sacrificing one innocent life to save more lives is moral. But deontological morality focus on the idea that certain things are wrong - like killing an innocent person - even if it can help more people.

# data[].attributes.subject
What I found to be the most interesting part of the trolley car discussion was hearing everyone in the class’s different opinions on the situation, and their reasoning behind whether they would pull the lever/push the large man. As soon as I heard the trolley car dilemma I made up my mind right away on what I personally would do in the situation, but then hearing what other’s in the class would do was very eye opening. I understood where the people who said they would push the large man in order to save more people were coming from, but my question towards that was whether or not that should be a decision they can make? The people in danger of being killed by the train were somehow put into that situation (their job or other reasoning), and the tragic event was going to happen whether you were present or not. The man would be facing death only if you were present and chose to push him onto the tracks. Therefore the people going to die on the tracks were not put there by you, but the man would be. If there are ways to save more people than less whom are already on the tracks, wouldn’t that would be a decision you could make but not placing another human being onto the tracks even if it were to save more lives? www.dailymail.co.uk goes into looking at this dilemma. This article supports the question of whether sacrificing one innocent life to save more lives is moral. But deontological morality focus on the idea that certain things are wrong - like killing an innocent person - even if it can help more people.

# data[].attributes.body
During the class discussion, it was very one sided, most people would pull the lever, but not push the big man. I found it very interesting to hear why people wouldn’t push the big man even though it is technically the same thing. You are still killing 1 man instead of 5. Personally, I would pull the lever and push the man because I am still saving more people in both situations. The question I am still wondering is why people can pull the lever but not physically push the man? In an article, I found by NPR at http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03/17/174558797/filibusters-can-t-stop-human-psychology the author talks about killing people from a distance and how it is easier than physical contact. He proposed a question that asked, “What if [you are] far away from the track but can push a button that will open a trap door that will drop the sixth man in front of the trolley, saving the men? Do the mediating factors of the button and trap door make it more acceptable for [you] to sacrifice the life of the single [man] on the footbridge in order to prevent the deaths of the five workmen on the track? I bet most people in the class who said they wouldn’t push the man would most likely push the button to kill the man on the footbridge. Like I said before, in the end you are doing the same thing and if you would push the button to let the man fall then that is no different than physically pushing him on the tracks.

# data[].attributes.body
The part of yesterday’s class discussion that was most interesting to me was the Trolley Car Dilemma. I found this to be the most interesting part of class due to the fact that everyone had a different opinion/reaction in regards to what they would do if they were in that same situation. Would they sacrifice one life in order to save five people or would they choose not to pull the lever at all? Personally, I would make the decision to pull the lever if I was in that situation. Although one person would die in doing so, I would ultimately be saving more lives in the end. After discussing this scenario, we then talked about what each of us would do if faced with a different, yet very similar situation. In this new scenario, we had the option of pushing a man in front of the trolley to stop it and overall, save the most lives. If in this situation, I feel as though I would not push the man in front of the trolley. There is just something about physically pushing someone that makes this specific action seem too much like murder. Also, it seems unfair to physically put an innocent man into a situation that he was not a part of in the first place.
My question is “What makes people think that it is okay to push the man in front of the trolley?” Below, I have attached an article which illuminates my question by asking if people feel as though it is their obligation to push the man in order to save the others. In reading that part of the article, I was then able to see why some people would push the man; if they felt as though they were obligated to, then that would explain their actions.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/h8q/the_unselfish_trolley_problem/

# data[].attributes.headline
Can reason or emotion be removed from the situation?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can reason or emotion be removed from the situation?

# data[].attributes.body
The part of the discussion that was most interesting to me was that in one scenario, people would kill one to save five, and in another, they would not kill the one thus killing five. This is related to the issue of reasoning versus feelings. In the first scenario, reason wins because one can detach themselves from the situation. In the second, where one would have to physically push someone in front of a train, feelings win. What would happen if one of these factors (feelings or reason) could be removed. This is examined in an article on bioethics.net, titled AI and the Trolley Car Dilemma, which discusses what would happen if a robot was put in the trolley car scenario. Theoretically, the artificial intelligence system would be better at answering the trolley car problem than humans because it doesn’t feel angst. It just pics it’s answer and sticks with it. Since it doesn’t have to wrestle with the idea of what is right, everything is merely a numerical issue. In this way, the robot would be acting as a utilitarian. However, utilitarian decision-making can only be universally accepted if everyone values everything’s utility to the same degree. As this will never be the case, even robots are not completely unbiased. This bias comes in to play via the programmer who creates the robot’s operating system. Though the robot does not feel angst over making the decisions, the programmer did while they were programming what the robot would value. This shows that even the most mechanical of systems cannot completely remove feelings or reason from this dilemma.

Link to article: http://www.bioethics.net/2017/02/ai-and-the-trolley-car-dilemma/

# data[].attributes.body
After we were discussed in class, I was interested in the Trolley Car Dilemma. When we talked about do we need to push the lever. Most people said that they will do it. Less people said they will not do anything because they do not how to choose. When we talked about do we need to push one person off the bridge. Most people said they cannot do it. Less people said they will do it. Most people will sacrifice one person to save five people, but they will not to kill one person to save five people. I think people want to sacrifice one person because they want to make more people survive. They think this way can make more benefits. I do not know what I will do in that time, but we cannot blame this behavior. I do not agree that kill one person to save five people. If people want to save them, they can kill themselves. This makes more reasonable. If they kill people. they need to be blamed. This can nor make senses. If people cannot sacrifice themselves, I think the best way is do not do anything. This maybe is not a good behavior, but it is better than kill one person. I think about people just think about saving five people, how about the person people want to sacrifice? Does the person do not need to be survived? Why people decide others’ life? This is too difficult to make a choice for me. When I read the article, I found. They have an example about the soldier. When people killed him to make them feel less pain, they make a plea. Some people will say:” kill me, I do not want to be abused”. Some people will say:” do not kill me I do not want to die in this war”. I will think about what the person will said before he died. He maybe says:” I do not want to die”, but other people make a choice for him. I think his family will blame the person who saved five people. I think that there is not right way to do in that situation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3528470/Would-kill-one-person-save-five-answer-moral-dilemma-determine-people-trust-you.html

# data[].attributes.body
In class today we looked over a scenario that weighed the life of one compared to the life of five. In the first scenario a trolley went off its tracks and was going to ram into 5 workers. To save your lives all you do was have to pull a lever. The only the weight of saving the lives of five was to kill the one. To many people pulling the lever was the obvious option because the happiness of more was optimized. The same problem was presented again but this time to save the five you had to push a bigger man off the bridge. This time around most people most people said no to pushing the man off the bridge. Some people thought that most people said no to pushing someone off the bridge because it was the method that was used to save the five. The person would have to dirty their hands and that was considered selfish. But then I thought if there was another reason why someone would push the man off the bridge and if pushing the man off the bridge was ethical?

The author answer the question in one go, saying that it was unethical to push the man off the bridge because the man did not volunteer to have his life taken. As a worker on the track he said you would be aware of the conditions. So therefore you didn't have a right neither was it ethical to take someone's life.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why do some individuals rush to help rather than to escape harm?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why do some individuals rush to help rather than to escape harm?

# data[].attributes.body
During our class discussion, I was most captivated by people’s reactions to the trolley car dilemma. It is the type of dilemma where there isn’t a satisfactory solution either way you look at it. Even if you save the lives of 5 workers by pulling the lever, you are still killing one worker. Why should the 5 people be saved and the one person not? One student brought the idea to the class about whether this one worker was hypothetically a scientist that could possibly save lives. According to them, the scientist’s life should be worth more than the lives of the 5 others. Also, I found it interesting how people’s opinions differed between pulling the lever and pushing the large man off the bridge. I then started thinking about the role of the bystander. In an emergency or while witnessing a crime, some people run to help rather than escaping or doing nothing. I was curious what causes someone makes the decision to run or to do nothing. One article I found discussing this question said it is because how our individual brains are different in their empathetic processing. He calls them “moral heroes”, people who are more empathetic and more altruistic. However, he says only 5 to 10 percent of the population are what you would call “moral heroes”. For the rest of us, the 90 percent, he claims that if we can see someone in need as someone like us, this can cause the ordinary brain to become heroic in the circumstances. So, the person that decides to pull the lever or push the man off the bridge are the "moral heroes". They can see these people in need and are willing to do something instead of taking no responsibility.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/21/the-bystanders-who-could-be-heroes/the-neuroscience-of-heroism

# data[].attributes.headline
Trolley Cart Dilemma The discussion in class followed the reading quite closely with the results of the “experiment” appearing very similar to the class’s response. I found it fun and interesting to listen to people reasons for why and why they wouldn’t make the decision to kill on person over five. I am also really intrigued by the psychology behind peoples reasoning and how that information can be used and taken into other contexts. I thought of a question when sitting in class. It follows the same idea as the trolley dilemma but is rethought in a completely different circumstance. Imagine you’re the husband and your wife is giving birth except something has gone wrong and your wife is unable to make any decisions. The doctors are only able to save one life. What do you choose? Did you ever discussed this terrible scenario before with your wife? Is your choice impacted if you already have children?This article explains a scenario in a similar manner, except with a woman and child in a car accident: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1232443/ALLISON-PEARSON-An-agonising-decision-Would-save-child-spouse.html. I found the results interesting especially that men most often picked their wife’s, while women picked their child and hoped that the men would do the same. The article then asked the question “Is maternal instinct ultimately stronger than the paternal variety?” Some women thought that saving their husband was important if they were the breadwinner of the house. It really made me think about all the potential scenarios and made me think, what would I do if I was forced to pick between two people I loved. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Trolley Cart Dilemma The discussion in class followed the reading quite closely with the results of the “experiment” appearing very similar to the class’s response. I found it fun and interesting to listen to people reasons for why and why they wouldn’t make the decision to kill on person over five. I am also really intrigued by the psychology behind peoples reasoning and how that information can be used and taken into other contexts. I thought of a question when sitting in class. It follows the same idea as the trolley dilemma but is rethought in a completely different circumstance. Imagine you’re the husband and your wife is giving birth except something has gone wrong and your wife is unable to make any decisions. The doctors are only able to save one life. What do you choose? Did you ever discussed this terrible scenario before with your wife? Is your choice impacted if you already have children?This article explains a scenario in a similar manner, except with a woman and child in a car accident: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1232443/ALLISON-PEARSON-An-agonising-decision-Would-save-child-spouse.html. I found the results interesting especially that men most often picked their wife’s, while women picked their child and hoped that the men would do the same. The article then asked the question “Is maternal instinct ultimately stronger than the paternal variety?” Some women thought that saving their husband was important if they were the breadwinner of the house. It really made me think about all the potential scenarios and made me think, what would I do if I was forced to pick between two people I loved. 

# data[].attributes.headline
What I found most interesting from the class discussion was when we started questioning our decisions and actions during the trolley dilemma video. Most people opted to save the most number of lives possible, killing off one person for the greater good if it were done so by a lever. When the context changed and the lever turned into killing a man by physical force the decision wasn’t as decisive as before. I started questioning why people could choose the lever and kill a person but unable to push a man to his death and get the same result; does direct contact with a human cause more guilt? I found that the Milgram experiment’s data was very compatible to my question because their research questioned if humans would be able to conflict pain onto other humans through a means of different approaches. Pain was inflicted by electrocution through a button which increased in voltage the more times it was pressed. More participants chose to continuously inflict pain when put in a separate room whereas when in the same room with the other participant in sight it felt almost direct, as if the person themselves was inflicting the pain. Less participants wanted to continue pressing the button when in the same room and started to feel a sense of guilt and responsibility. This experiment shows that people can feel disconnected from their actions, despite possibly murdering someone, if they can remove their source of guilt by justifying their actions or blaming someone else. In this case, pulling the lever is the object that would justify killing the one person and removes a personal weight of guilt. Whereas, visibly and physically harming someone creates more responsibility and guilt for someone. 

# data[].attributes.subject
What I found most interesting from the class discussion was when we started questioning our decisions and actions during the trolley dilemma video. Most people opted to save the most number of lives possible, killing off one person for the greater good if it were done so by a lever. When the context changed and the lever turned into killing a man by physical force the decision wasn’t as decisive as before. I started questioning why people could choose the lever and kill a person but unable to push a man to his death and get the same result; does direct contact with a human cause more guilt? I found that the Milgram experiment’s data was very compatible to my question because their research questioned if humans would be able to conflict pain onto other humans through a means of different approaches. Pain was inflicted by electrocution through a button which increased in voltage the more times it was pressed. More participants chose to continuously inflict pain when put in a separate room whereas when in the same room with the other participant in sight it felt almost direct, as if the person themselves was inflicting the pain. Less participants wanted to continue pressing the button when in the same room and started to feel a sense of guilt and responsibility. This experiment shows that people can feel disconnected from their actions, despite possibly murdering someone, if they can remove their source of guilt by justifying their actions or blaming someone else. In this case, pulling the lever is the object that would justify killing the one person and removes a personal weight of guilt. Whereas, visibly and physically harming someone creates more responsibility and guilt for someone. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a 1962 letter, as a last-ditch effort for clemency, Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann wrote that he and other low-level officers were "forced to serve as mere instruments," shifting the responsibility for the deaths of millions of Jews to his superiors. The "just following orders" defense, made famous in the post-WWII Nuremberg trials, featured heavily in Eichmann's court hearings.

But that same year Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, conducted a series of famous experiments that tested whether "ordinary" folks would inflict harm on another person after following orders from an authoritative figure. Shockingly, the results suggested any human was capable of a heart of darkness.

Milgram's research tackled whether a person could be coerced into behaving heinously, but new research released Thursday offers one explanation as to why.

"In particular, acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused," said study co-author Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, in an email.

In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they're the ones committing the act.

The study, published in the journal Current Biology, described this distance as people experiencing their actions more as "passive movements than fully voluntary actions" when they follow orders.

Researchers at University College London and Université libre de Bruxelles in Belgium arrived at this conclusion by investigating how coercion could change someone's "sense of agency," a psychological phenomenon that refers to one's awareness of their actions causing some external outcome.

More simply, Haggard described the phenomenon as flipping a switch (action) to turn on a light (external outcome). The time between the action and its outcome is typically experienced as a simultaneous event. Through two experiments, however, Haggard and the other researchers showed that people experienced a longer lapse in time in between the action and outcome, even if the outcome was unpleasant. It's like you flip the switch, but it takes a beat or two for the light to appear.

"This [disconnect] suggests a reduced sense of agency, as if the participants' actions under coercion began to feel more passive," Haggard said.

Unlike Milgram's classic research, Haggard's team introduced a shocking element that was missing in the original 1960s experiments: actual shocks. Haggard said they used "moderately painful, but tolerable, shocks." Milgram feigned shocks up to 450 volts.

According to Milgram's experiments, 65 percent of his volunteers, described as "teachers," were willing (sometimes reluctantly) to press a button that delivered shocks up to 450 volts to an unseen person, a "learner" in another room. Although pleas from the unknown person could be heard, including mentions of a heart condition, Milgram's study said his volunteers continued to shock the "learner" when ordered to do so. At no point, however, did someone truly experience an electric shock.

"Milgram's studies rested on a deception: Participants were instructed to administer 'severe shocks' to an actor, who in fact merely feigned being shocked," Haggard said. "It's difficult to ascertain whether participants are really deceived or not in such situations."

Video by YouTube user Charles Ewing Smith

When Yale received reams of Milgram's documents in the 2000s, other psychologists started to criticize the famous electric-shock study when they sifted through the notes more closely.

Gina Perry, author of "Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments," found a litany of methodological problems with the study. Perry said Milgram's experiments were far less controlled than originally thought and introduced variables that appeared to goose the numbers.

Haggard said his team's study was more transparent. In the first experiment, he said participants - an "agent" and a "victim" - took turns delivering mild shocks or inflicting a financial penalty on each other. In some cases, a third person - an "experimenter" - sat in the room and gave orders on whether to inflict harm. In other cases, the experimenter looked away, while the agent acted on their own volition.

The result? Researchers measured a "small, but significant" increase in the perceived time between a person's action and outcome when coercion was involved. That is, when people act "under orders," they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves, Haggard said.

In a second experiment, the team explored whether the loss of agency could also be seen in the brain activity of subjects. Prior work had found that brain activity is dampened when people are forced to follow orders.

So akin to before, subjects had to decide whether to shock a person with or without coercion, but now they heard an audible tone while making the choice. This tone elicited a brain response that could be measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) cap.

Haggard's team found that brain activity in response to this tone is indeed dampened when being coerced. Haggard's team also used a questionnaire in the second experiment to get explicit judgments from the volunteers, who explained they felt less responsible when they acted under orders.

Haggard said his team's findings do not legitimate the Nuremberg defense and that anyone who claims they were "just following orders" ought to be viewed with skepticism.

But, "our study does suggest that this claim might potentially correspond to the basic experience that the person had of their action at the time," Haggard said.

"If people acting under orders really do feel reduced responsibility, this seems important to understand. For a start, people who give orders should perhaps be held more responsible for the actions and outcomes of those they coerce," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Nazi's defense of 'just following orders' plays out in the mind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stanley Milgram's famous electric-shock experiments tackled whether a person could be coerced into behaving heinously, but new research released Thursday offers one explanation as to why. Turns out, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they're the ones committing the heinous act.

# data[].attributes.body
The most interesting part of yesterday’s conversation to me was the different perspectives everyone had about the trolley cart and if it was really considered murder or not. To me I think being up close and personal with a person and pushing them of the balcony to stop a train from hitting five other people would be considered murder just because it shouldn’t be your choice to sacrifice someone else. Which is why I find it interesting because in both scenarios if you sacrifice the one person both of those actions are technically considered murder, but pulling the lever and not actually touching the person wouldn’t feel like murder to me. I also found it interesting how everyone in the room had different opinions about if they had to physically push someone of a bridge in front of a train if that would be considered murder or not. I just am curious on what differentiates people to think one way about a scenario and others to think a different way about it. So I wonder what distinguishes the two, even though they are both murder, why does one make you feel guilty and the other doesn’t? http://people.howstuffworks.com/trolley-problem1.htm This site talks about why we would feel guilty pushing someone of the balcony. The website calls it the Doctrine of the Double Effect. I really think that it goes back to what is right or wrong to a person. This doctrine seeks to justify the action of a bad effect, which would essentially be pushing someone in front of a train.

# data[].attributes.body
In class the most interesting part of the discussion was to hear everyone else's viewpoint on pulling the lever for the trolley car or not.  I find that people who think about that decision now would obviously choose to pull the lever and if they were physically in that situation they would not be able to pull the lever because they would not and to take responsibility for it. I would like to know more about why people's decision making can be harder when they faced with certain situations? Benedikt Ahlfeld talks about the power of decision in his TedX talk. He mentions that many people don’t take responsibility for their decisions because of three decision traps that they may fall into. The first one being stimulus overflow where the abundance of choice makes us paralyzed and delays or decision making ability. An example of this is when you go to the grocery store and you end up walking out with more than you were going for or you spend too much time there because there are so many brands to choose from. The second trap he talks about is the permanent pressure that we live with on a daily basis like having our parents constantly looking over us to go to school and get the best grades possible. The last trap he talks about is perfectionism that people strive for. He uses the example from Steven Covey’s book, The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People where he says that perfectionism is what prohibits people from taking action.

Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=542qgGgL1s4

# data[].attributes.body
In class, we discussed the trolley car dilemma that exposes one’s logical thinking versus sentimental thinking when approached with an instance where he or she oversees a fatal outcome. In the initial prompt, there is a lever, if switched, would steer a runaway trolley to a track with one person instead of five and ultimately kill whoever is in the way. Most people chose the utilitarian route and save the most number of people by switching the lever and killing only one. However, in the later prompt where one would have to push a heavier weight individual in front of the trolley to save five others from a gruesome death, nearly half the class opted to do nothing resulting in the five fatalities. This could be the imperative comparative at work where killing an innocent individual to save how many others should not be universal law because that is not a position where rational beings would place themselves to be. Technically the same situation, but what interested me is how the dilemma showed the effect on how someone would act if he or she was the explicit and direct cause of death compared to a discreet and indirect method. What I would like to know is to what degree our morality and sense of humanity will shift if presented to a similar ethical dilemma that places us as the “murderer”. https://rationaloptimist.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/utilitarianism-is-killing-one-to-save-five-moral/ Here is an article that discusses ethical intuitions to commit impersonal versus personal acts and what he defines as “a true real-world utilitarianism incorporates the kind of inviolable human rights that protect people from being exploited.”

# data[].attributes.body
During our class discussion of the commonly known Trolley Car Dilemma, I found it most interesting that there are so many different slight variations of the dilemma that allow for different answers in essentially the same situation.  While the overall question remains whether an individual would choose to save 5 lives by killing a single person, there are many different approaches and circumstances that can affect the answer.  With this in mind I began to wonder, how would artificial intelligence approach such a problem?  With technology on the rise, artificial intelligence is becoming more common and will soon be a part of our everyday lives.  For this purpose, I chose to focus on self-driving cars.  If a self-driving car was unable to avoid a crash and was headed for a car with a family of 5, would it turn into a car with only one passenger?
Link:https://medium.com/@tanayj/self-driving-cars-and-the-trolley-problem-5363b86cb82d This source is able to draw a close relation between the trolley car and a self-driving car by providing multiple situations in which the car would have to make the same decision that people have pondered for as long as the trolley car dilemma has existed.  Eventually, companies like Apple and Google will have to come up with an answer to a situation in which the car must choose between killing 5 on its current course, or changing courses to kill a single person.  Even more troubling, do the cars have a responsibility to their passengers’ safety?  If a car had to choose between driving off a cliff and killing the passenger inside, or hitting a different car off the cliff, killing 5 passengers, but saving the passenger inside, would it be the car’s duty to save its passenger?

# data[].attributes.body
I found most interesting about this dilemma from class was the idea that this thought process used both logic and sentiment. Indicating that I believe most decision making that people have or want to make are usually based on emotion and logic together. I don't believe that people can base their decision on either/or on the spectrum.
In order to think about weather or not to pull the lever in both instances you need to think strategically but also from an emotional stand point. The people that chose not to push the larger man in front the of the train, yes seem to think more emotionally but I think one can also argue that this is also a logic decision as well. It would be a logical statement in that you wouldn't want to live in a world where people are pushed in front of trains.
I would like to know if this dilemma would indicate using more of a logical or emotional stand point, or would it be considered both? An article I read indicated a study found using simulated reality of this dilemma, that the people choosing to pull the lever, indicated to be more on the emotional side of the spectrum. Which seems interesting since before I believed that it could be a mixture of both.
Link: http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2011/moral-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five/

# data[].attributes.body
In class on Thursday, 9/15, we spent a lot of time talking about the trolley car incident. It gives us a choice of would we pull a lever to change the trolleys direction to save 5 workers, but you end up still killing one worker. Are we willing to kill one life to save 5? That is the main question, and that amazes me. If I could save 5 peoples lives I would absolutely do it. I am willing to hold the burden of the one mans death, but I saved more lives then if I didn't pull the lever. But there is one thing that I don't understand; Why do some people not pull the lever? You are saving more lives then if you didn’t do anything at all. I understand that one person has to die to save those 5 people, but you are saving more lives then you are taking. You are doing more good then evil, so why wouldn’t you do it. Their is also a similar scenario where you are on a bridge with a runaway trolley. There is only one path, and the only way to save the people on the track would be to push a fat man off the bridge to save the lives of the railroad workers. More people would not push the fat man because it is actually you pushing the man onto the track, killing him. This, compared to only pulling lever, killing one man but not getting physical when he died. People are more willing to pull a lever then physically taking a life to save 5 workers.

https://medium.com/@andrew.kerr/my-problem-with-the-trolley-problem-45efa17ca525

# data[].attributes.body
What I found to be the most interesting topic of our discussion in class was the issue of it infants can recognize good from bad and if they have a sense or morality. I do not believe that children are born with a blank slate. I believe they are born with a very basic survival instinct and this instinct allows them to recognize actions that are helpful or harmful. This sense of what is good and bad not only applies to themselves, but also to those around them. This was demonstrated in the Yale puppet experiment. The infant was able to recognize that one puppet was being helpful while another was being harmful to the puppet trying to climb the hill.  It is my belief that babies are born with a very, very simple concept of morality and everything beyond that is learned. They develop beliefs and morals through experiences and what they are taught from their parents. In the experiment done, it is clear that the child has a sense of morality, but I believe a portion of that was learned. If the Yale experiment had taken  new born babies, how many of them would have picked out the nice puppet? http://bigthink.com/insights-of-genius/the-moral-worldview-of-babies. This article describes how a child views fairness and equality. It explains a few examples of how infants expressed when they thought they were not being treated equally. The article gives another perspective on the topic to help understand the morality of babies.

# data[].attributes.body
The topic I found most interesting in the discussion during class was the trolley car theory. It really made you think about how each persons brain works uniquely to come up with a solution to the problem. I found it interesting when almost everyone in the class would push the lever and then when it came to physically pushing the man off the bridge almost all of the class said they could not do it. To me if you can kill someone by pulling the lever you should easily be able to do it by pushing them off the bridge because either way you are taking their life into your hands and consequently ending it. For me there is no easy answer to this dilemma because you interfering with someone else’s path in life and I don't know how I would be able to live with myself for either solution. I guess this makes me pose the question are you morally wrong for choosing to do nothing? Does that make you overall selfish and morally unsound? Well, a case study shows from Michigan State University that 90% would choose to pull the lever which is understandable. Although we should not kill somehow this is justified because in return you are saving 5 people. For the 10% that did not pull the lever they were emotionally aroused and showed signs of major anxiety which caused them not to pull the lever. The reasons are unknown for not pulling the lever, but studies show that anxiety causes you to freeze up and not make the utilitarian decision.

Link to research:

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2011/moral-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five/

# data[].attributes.headline
  Is it our duty to save all 5 people?                                                           During the class discussion I would say I was most captivated by the trolley car dilemma because it related to me more. It was engaging to hear others opinions. I personally believed what the majority of people thought which was to pull the lever, but not push the large man because again like others, physically pushing the large man had a more emotional response (actually murdering this man). I think I was also inclined not to push the large man because I knew he most likely would not stop the trolley. So some people use the utilitarian approach to save the 5 people in both scenarios, while most others would pull the lever, but not push the man. Is it our duty to save all 5 people in both scenarios, or is it justified not to push the innocent large man because you are just using him to end his life for the good of others? I would like to point to an article I found that mentions the movie “Saving Private Ryan.” In order to complete the mission many of the soldiers were sadly killed along the way to find and save this one soldier. So in this case sacrificing many men for one is ok because it is their duty. So is it our duty to save an innocent man? The article mentions how psychologists have always been curious as to why many people have a deontological style of thinking. So it can been seen in two different viewpoints to push or not push the large man.                                                   

# data[].attributes.subject
  Is it our duty to save all 5 people?                                                           During the class discussion I would say I was most captivated by the trolley car dilemma because it related to me more. It was engaging to hear others opinions. I personally believed what the majority of people thought which was to pull the lever, but not push the large man because again like others, physically pushing the large man had a more emotional response (actually murdering this man). I think I was also inclined not to push the large man because I knew he most likely would not stop the trolley. So some people use the utilitarian approach to save the 5 people in both scenarios, while most others would pull the lever, but not push the man. Is it our duty to save all 5 people in both scenarios, or is it justified not to push the innocent large man because you are just using him to end his life for the good of others? I would like to point to an article I found that mentions the movie “Saving Private Ryan.” In order to complete the mission many of the soldiers were sadly killed along the way to find and save this one soldier. So in this case sacrificing many men for one is ok because it is their duty. So is it our duty to save an innocent man? The article mentions how psychologists have always been curious as to why many people have a deontological style of thinking. So it can been seen in two different viewpoints to push or not push the large man.                                                   

# data[].attributes.body
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3528470/Would-kill-one-person-save-five-answer-moral-dilemma-determine-people-trust-you.html

# data[].attributes.body
What I found most interesting about yesterday's discussion was everyone's different approache to how they would handle the lever and man scenarios. Many people agreed that they would pull the lever, yet would not push the man since you're essentially killing him with your own hands.  Even though both events end with the same outcome, people have difficulty being able to push a person to their death.  Some think its easier to pull the lever since it is not as much of a physical act as pushing.  Yet, I do believe that since both instances have the same end result, they are both equally as hard.  However, when deciding to pull the lever or not, would your decision change if you knew who the one person was?  A debate on debatepedia.org suggests that in some instances, killing one to save five may not always be the correct choice.  They asked if you would kill one 5 year old to save five 90 year olds?  They also proposed that what if that one person knows the cure to cancer?  In these two situations, the better result would come from saving the one life opposed to the five others.  Furthermore, this proves that people cannot just be judged as numbers, but also by what they provide.  Yet, some may argue that all humans were created equal, so their lives should be equally compared when making your decision.  However, I agree with the first approach.  I think in some instances, who the people are can really help in making your decision.
Link:
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Resolved:_It_is_morally_permissible_to_kill_one_innocent_person_to_save_the_lives_of_more_innocent_people

# data[].attributes.body
The most interesting piece of the discussion for me was the idea that our brains separate the decision to pull a lever or push a person.  Even though a utilitarian view is the same outcome, our human minds recognize the difference between indirectly killing a person and physically pushing someone to their death.  Either way, I personally have difficulty deciding what I would do.  In either situation, a person or multiple people would die and I would hate to have to make the decision to end someone’s life.

I would like to know if there is another solution that does not involve myself being directly responsible for the deaths of unsuspecting people.  Tomkow.com suggest a new solution. Instead of me forcibly pushing the unsuspecting fat man onto the tracks, perhaps he could gauge the situation and willingly throw himself in the way to save the others.  However, this is being optimistic in assuming that a stranger would give his life for a few others.  Then again such heroism is not unheard of.  Even if the fat man sees and understands the situation and does not take action, I myself could jump onto the tracks.  Although I may not be large enough to stop the train as the fat man would have, maybe I can slow it down enough to give the workers time to realize the situation and escape safely.  Even though we all have a basic instinct for self-preservation, I can’t imagine purposely pulling a lever or pushing a person to decide who lives and dies.

Link: http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2008/06/a-solution-to-t.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Child's Solution For Trolley Cart Dilemma 

# data[].attributes.subject
Child's Solution For Trolley Cart Dilemma 

# data[].attributes.body
During class discussions, I found myself intrigued by the perceptions others took regarding the trolley car dilemma. While it may seem a no brainer to most adults, the majority saying pull the lever, and do not push the large man, it is still debatable. Early in the class, we discussed how children have a sense of morality as well. While many adults debate over the solution to the dilemma, how might a child answer this dilemma? Well, a psychologist recorded his son, Nicholas, and posted his child’s solution to Youtube. The little toddler is playing with his wooden train set and his dad sets up the same Trolley car Dilemma and asks the boy of his solution. While he may pause and think of for a second or two about the more positive choices, he ends up selecting a completely unheard of solution which is violent in nature and completely non-utilitarian. Nicholas decides to move the lonely person over, which at first leads us to believe he is going to make the train go on the empty track but this is not the case. Instead, he makes a completely anarchist move and runs all six people over. After Nicholas responded to his fathers question, he is heard saying, “Uh-Oh”.  This indicates that he most likely knew he had done something out of the norm and wrong. Although he opted for an option of completely equal treatment, Nicholas provided a perfect example of a non-utilitarian option as he chooses no one to be happy, rather everyone suffered.

Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4

# data[].attributes.body
-        Describe what part of the discussion was most interesting to you.

-        Provide a follow-up question that you still have about this particular topic. What would you like to know more about?

-        Provide a link to a source that addresses your follow-up question. In other words, look up a source that might help you answer your question.

-        Describe how this source explains or illuminates the topic.

-        Respond to the Padlet posts of three of your classmates. You can respond to their question or you can respond to the source they provide for follow-up. Your response should be two to three sentences in length. Your responses do not count toward the length requirement of your own post.