Skip to main content

The Trolley Car Experiment and How it Relates to Gun Control

There's an interesting experiment in human psychology/morality that has been repeated numerous times over the years called The Trolley Car Dilemma. It goes by other names, too, but that's what I'll call it here.

Imagine you're near some trolley tracks and a train is heading your way. There are five people on the tracks who cannot see or hear the train, nor you. The trolley is on a collision course with the five people, unable to stop, and you cannot help except by pulling a lever that would divert the trolley to another set of tracks. However, on those tracks there is one person, again unable to be notified of the situation. Should you pull the lever, thus allowing the trolley to strike the one person, killing her, but saving the five?



What if there was a new twist? There is no lever, but you're standing on an overhead path (like the one in the picture above, overhead the trolley). You know that a very heavy object could stop the train, but unfortunately, the only heavy object available is an extremely obese man, sitting on the edge of the bridge. You could push him off the bridge onto the tracks, stopping the train and saving the life of the five people. Of course, this would result in the fat man's death. Would you push him?

Of course, the end result in either case (pulling the lever or pushing the fat man) is the same: In both cases, your action results in the death of one innocent person, and your inaction results in five innocents killed. Nearly everybody polled would pull the lever in the first scenario, but interestingly, a much lower percentage of people polled would NOT push the fat man in the second scenario. Oddly enough, many people cannot explain why. Psychologists widely agree that Kantian morality is at play here; that the vast majority of people agree that people have a hard time justifying using another person as a means to an end.

So what does this have to do with gun control?

There is mounting evidence that another more prominent psychological factor is at play here, that being that "harm involving physical contact with the victim is worse than harm involving no physical contact."

Have you ever heard the lazy argument that "If there were no guns, people who wanted to murder would just find another weapon and kill with it?" Well, the evidence does not play that out.

Pulling a trigger is like pulling a lever to divert a trolley train (most people would do this). Stabbing, choking, or beating a person is like pushing a fat man off a bridge (most people would not do this). It's much easier for the  human moral compass to justify harm if physical contact isn't made, and according to the study by Cushman, Young, and Hauser, subjects cite lack of contact more than they cite using people as an ends to a mean when justifying physical harm.

This is pretty good scientific evidence that the argument used by the right wing to allow gun ownership is false. Somebody who wants somebody dead is less likely to kill them if a gun is unavailable.

Like me on Facebook
Follow me on Twitter

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible Endorses Slavery

Endorses is the key word in title of this blog post. The Bible doesn't merely condone  slavery. It actively endorses and promotes it. Slavery  is the second essential word in the title, because the Bible doesn't simply endorse indentured servitude as many Christian apologists argue. When the Bible discusses slavery, it isn't talking about people who owed a debt working to pay it off in lieu of settling with currency, as sources such as Answers in Genesis will attempt to have you believe. We're talking full blown slavery  every bit as immoral and wicked as it was for 18th-19th century North America. After reading this post, there'll be no uncertainty about truth claim I've made in the title, as the text within the Bible is perfectly clear. Unless stated otherwise, the text quoted below will be the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. Leviticus 25:44 says "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you. From them, you may

Interview with @ProtoAtheist, a Biologist, About Evolution

Brendan, a biologist, goes by "Prototype Atheist" on social media challenges creationists to think critically about creation and evolution.  I asked him some basic questions about evolution and presented a few of the more common creationist objections to it. @GodsNotReal_ : What is your education and working experience? (Just to establish credibility) @ProtoAtheist: I have a Master's Degree in molecular biology and have worked for a diagnostics company as an R&D scientist for 8 years. @GodsNotReal_ : Can you operationally define what evolution is? @ProtoAtheist:  Biological evolution, simply put, is the change in allele frequencies over time in a population of organisms. Alleles are just different forms of a gene. Allele frequencies might change in a population via natural selection or genetic drift. Natural selection is when external pressures affect a population of organisms such that a specific allele or alleles become beneficial or detrimental relative to

Some Questions About Heaven...

I have a lot of questions about heaven, what it's like there, and who is allowed in. If you're a Christian who believes in heaven, you probably don't know all the answers, but I hope you'll give a lot of serious thought to these questions. Where is it? Is it literally in the clouds above, or some other mystical, magical space? If it is physical, how could we find it? If it is metaphysical, what special forces separate it from what I like to call "reality?" Is there weather in heaven? What if some people really like snow, wind, and rain, and others like perpetual sunshine? Is there thunder and lightning there? If there is, what if some people, like children, are afraid of it? How could anybody experience fear in paradise? And if God can magically make people not afraid of it, then why didn't he do that for us on earth? Who goes there and what are the criteria? Do you have to be a Christian? Is any version or schism of Christianity acceptable? Do