Notes

Is it okay to kill one guy to save five others using a lever? Majority of people will say yes to this. Now, switch some variables in this scenario and the response will be entirely different. You're now standing on a foot bridge that passes over the tracks while you're glancing down, no lever is visible, however there's a large man standing beside you over the tracks. If you push the man, you'll be able to save the five workers and sacrifice the man besides you to do so. When this question was posed to people, nine out of ten said it was acceptable to kill one and save five, using a lever. However, nine out of ten said no when the scenario involved physically pushing the guy.

Given the fact that both these situations provide the same outcome, why the logical inconsistency in most people's responses? The podcast explores the reasoning as to how people rationally distinguish between the moral implications in both these scenarios. The consensus is that people would choose to kill one in order to save five, but resent being put in a position where they have to kill anyone. A researched performed brain scans on various people asking them the same two questions, which showed different parts of the brain illuminated on either question being asked. So, the question posed is whether our morality is inherent to us and apart of our evolution? They coined this as our "inner chimp reflexes". This was observed in chimps, where when a blueberry branch was dropped in their observation enclosure; if the juveniles catch the branch, the adults will take it then equally divide the blueberries among everyone. The researcher, Francis, believed the main reason for primates surviving was due to cooperation among each other and empathy.

Another dilemma was posed to people at a research center, the question of whether or not you'd smother your own child to save a village? Brain scan photos showed polarizing responses in the brain.