I doubt that people became more utilitarian as they became more drunk. A simpler explanation is the participants answered the questions using the same altered thinking drunk people use to choose their own behavior; They think far less than normal about the social consequences of their actions.<p>You don't want to flip the trolley switch in part because you feel more likely to be blamed for the outcome, or to be held accountable for making the wrong decision. After drinking a bit of alcohol, it is easier to forget about how others will perceive your actions and instead think about the physical consequences of the actions themselves.
I didn't read the study but whenever you ask these questions, you'd also need to account for the legal implications.<p>I doubt any court in any country would say "You did the right thing" flipping the switch or pushing that person off the bridge. IOW, you're likelihood for ending up in prison for a good amount of time is much higher.<p>Furthermore, it's entirely possible that we are even conditioned to say it's wrong to flip the switch because that's how the laws are.<p>An interesting discussion about this problem and its legal implications is [0] - a dozen or so pages but it will make you think for days about it (read the PDF and not only the wikipedia article)<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_of_the_Speluncean_Explorers" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_of_the_Speluncean_Exp...</a>
If you were to ask 102 sober people if they would drive whilst under the influence of alcohol, then you would get 102 definite 'no' answers. Okay, some HN person might have some convoluted 'no' and some bored person might throw in some other silly answer, but, generally, you would get 102 'no' answers to this simple question.<p>Obviously none of this group of 102 would ever drink and then drive whilst under the influence of alcohol, then be silly enough to get caught. That is what you would think if you took the survey results as proof of something. However, maybe not tonight or even some night soon, some of those people will drink and drive, maybe to get caught.<p>So, if Mr Police Officer stops one of our 102, weaving across the road, driving home drunk, does the drunkard have a) a bundle of feeble excuses and lies or b) a well thought out, coherent reason for driving under the influence? It is a), not b). My point being that 'cold logic' does not apply to 'drunk people' and the best test of that is actual actions, e.g. propensity to drive under the influence, rather than some notional question about would you 'save this baby squirrel or let the holocaust happen?'
The train question has always annoyed me. It's a fantasy world where you kill and save people by pulling a lever. And after the you answer, people add more rules, like "you may have to face jail time if you deliberately kill anyone". What about negligence?<p>Call me obtuse, but no one could convince me yet that not pulling the lever is the right option. Does it detach you from the problem? No, you still took an option and acted according to it.<p>Maybe even better, we should look for the sociopath who's trapping people in these train racks for the fun of creating moral dilemmas.
In addition to the points already made here, there is a difference between what people say they would do and what they would actually do. This difference may be bigger or smaller for drunk people but in any case, what we learn from a study like this is about how people present themselves, not how they act.
Putting philosophical approaches on the scale of drunkenness allows me to consider possibly the most fascinating corollary I can think of this whole experiment, which is to try to deduce the general level of intoxication of the original philosophers while working on their most notable publications.
I would think any question starting with "Would you..." gets more chances of getting a "Yes" as an answer when the person you are asking is drunk, whatever is the question.
“Blood alcohol concentration predicts utilitarian responses in moral dilemmas” — seriously?
Blood alcohol concentration correlates to unlawful behavior.<p>For both dilemmas, a person who won’t touch that switch or won’t push anyone is legally innocent. There’s no way he’ll have to go to the court, while the organizer[s] of those experiments will be charged with a 1st degree murder and found guilty.<p>OTOH, a person who will switch those rails or push an innocent will be charged with a murder of that 1 person she killed, and I’m seriously doubt any jury will find the suspect not guilty.<p>Drunk people don’t realize legal consequences of their [in]action. That’s why they conclude saving 5 people justifies killing the 1.
There are two reasons someone would make the non-utilitarian answer to the questions:<p>- They wouldn't feel that they could bring them self to cause someone's death (but they could still be utilitarian in principle)<p>- They feel that it's not the right ethical choice<p>A well known consequence of consuming alcohol is "dutch courage", becoming bolder and more risk-taking. I suspect the differences seen are actually just the utilitarian-in-principle folk being a bit braver.<p>Rather than asking:<p>"people must choose whether they would flip a switch to divert a runaway trolley, killing one person but sparing five others"<p>They could've asked what they think the correct thing for someone else to do would be.
I'd be interested to know what fields the participants were from and how that changed their answers. Grenoble is pretty STEM heavy college town, ~1/3rd of the population are students.
This part is kind of a deal breaker:<p>"Duke also recognized that the implications of the study are limited, especially because the sample size is so small. Plus, the questions themselves have flaws."
Did this article overlook the recent findings that Alcohol is similar in effects to low doses of Oxytocin and thus influences a 'trust decision'?
That was my first thought too. In the article they talk about decreased empathy, but maybe it's social awareness.<p>I also feel like if I was sober, and that dude walked up to me, I would tell him what I actually think (don't kill the guy). If I was drunk, I would just say whatever I thought was the most amusing, which is clearly the more callous response.<p>They need to do a randomized experiment. It could be the social environment, it could be the types of people who like to drink a lot are more unfeeling, etc