I would just like to point out the trolley problem here.
Yes, pulling the lever will save four people, but the one person who dies would still be alive if it wasn’t for us pulling the lever. There’s a (somewhat radical) active intervention that makes us responsible for potential bad outcomes.
There seems to be a similar effect with “more dakka”. Implementing a modest solution is socially justifiable. Implementing a radical solution may be less so.
It’s a dilemma, and even if you’re 100% doing the right thing, it may still lead to bad outcomes.
Why would pulling the lever make you more responsible of the outcome than not pulling the lever? Both are options you decide to take once you have observed the situation.
I would just like to point out the trolley problem here.
Yes, pulling the lever will save four people, but the one person who dies would still be alive if it wasn’t for us pulling the lever. There’s a (somewhat radical) active intervention that makes us responsible for potential bad outcomes.
There seems to be a similar effect with “more dakka”. Implementing a modest solution is socially justifiable. Implementing a radical solution may be less so.
It’s a dilemma, and even if you’re 100% doing the right thing, it may still lead to bad outcomes.
Why would pulling the lever make you more responsible of the outcome than not pulling the lever? Both are options you decide to take once you have observed the situation.
Logically, maybe not that much.
Socially, this is a believe people hold.
I think it’s the main argument for people choosing not to pull the lever (almost 20% by a survey I found).