Presented with this option, said Banaji , most people refuse. In our guts, something seems different about tossing someone in front of the train rather than sending the train at someone -- and neither social psychologists nor neuroscientists nor philosophers know why.

Interestingly, if the characters in the dilemma are replaced with chimpanzees, people are unhesitatingly willing to throw the monkey on the track.

"When something is different from us, we become utilitarian. But for ourselves, we observe Kantian principles," said Banaji.

The obvious differences in background, culture, and experience result in the principal differences in ethical theory in each person. Every participant would decide to utilize their own ethical theory in order to come to their certain conclusion.
------------

Adam

New Social Bookmarking Service

Fascinating topic.

Of course there might be some meta-thinking involved. Throwing one person onto the track would not guarantee that the trolley, in fact, would stop. Throwing the switch might do what the problem indicates. Applying real world knowledge to the problem would lead to the result above, because while the problem dictates that you must make a decision based solely on the data presented, our minds almost always try to fill in the blanks.

One could say that both choices are then utilitarian.

Maybe I don't understand this intellectual problem.
But it seems, that some people want to die. This is dayly occuring. If I get in the way them - it maybe only in the Christian World, where suicide is "sin" called a good deed.
But never I would kill an uninvolved person! I am atheist!
But kill any without been threatened is banned in every culture and punished by law!
The only way for real christians maybe to throw down themselves with the result to risc everlasting heaven - but maybe he gets dispense by saving those 8 sinners...
Therefore results for me, that this is an intellectual game and no test for morality.