.✦ ݁˖

Hey! i'm not good with starting written paraghraphs so let's just break the ice with a topic i've discussed in class some days ago: the trolley problem.

a little context: i'm studying an humanistic major, very interesting for the stars out there that love understanding people.

during one of the lectures, we (me and two colleagues) came across the trolley paradox.





a very high quality image of the trolley paradox





in case you didn't know, i'll ctrl+c and ctrl+v it very quickly so we're all on the same page:

"A trolley is speeding toward five hostages. You are in front of a lever that can divert it onto a side track, where only one person is present."



of course, my two colleagues said "i'd pull the lever" which is more than fair. this is a paradox for a reason, even if i didn't agree right away. i got lost thinking about the juridical implications of pulling the lever in a situation like this (i was playing chess while they were playing checkers type shi) (please take this in the most ironic way possible) (and yes, i already knew the paradox).

but the problem arrived later, with the following variation:





a very high quality image of the trolley paradox but this time you're holding a guy



another ctrl+c and ctrl+v explanation:

"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five."



now, my two colleagues were mortified, saying they wouldn't push the guy because it's "too physical". pushing a lever to kill someone in order to save five seems better than pushing (and killing) a guy to save five. my colleagues weren't the only ones that thought that way. almost all the people in the class that would have pulled the first lever wouldn't have pushed the guy down in the second scenario.



why? because our brain tends to perceive a direct act as worst than an omission: if you pull the lever, the act itself is detached, while if you push the man, you're actively causing his death. this is called "omission bias" (definition by unc Wikipedia: "Omission bias is the moral judgement in which people prefer omission (inaction) over commission (action), and tend to believe harm as a result of commission more negatively than harm as a result of omission") or, even if it's a little different, "framing effect" (still explained by Wikipedia: "Framing effect is a cognitive bias where people's decisions change depending on how options or statements are framed, even when they are logically identical").



and this is exactly what i find fascinating about human nature: we contradict ourselves constantly, the way our brain is constantly fogged by biases, emotions, experiences... everything can shift thanks to a small "nudge" in another direction or a persuasion hidden beneath colours and cool visuals.



last fun fact before i close this chapter: apparently, judges will give harsher sentences before lunch time and be nicer after eating.

keep that in mind for your exams, stars ;)

.✦ ݁˖