Suppose a runaway trolley is about to run over and kill five people. Suppose that a huge stranger is standing on a bridge over the tracks, and the only way to stop the trolley is to push that person in front of the trolley, killing him for sure but saving the others (Figure 1). Is it acceptable to sacrifice one life to save many?
Credit. Creative commons
Beyond the tracks: The science of moral thinking
This short scenario, known as the Footbridge dilemma, invites you to engage in a thought experiment that presents a choice: sacrifice one life to save five others or let five people die. For scientists, this “sacrificial dilemma” is a widely used tool for exploring human morality and understanding the principles that guide moral choices.
At the heart of this moral dilemma lie two fundamental ethical theories: utilitarianism and deontology (Figure 2). Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of actions, advocating for choices that maximise overall good. From this perspective, you might push the man onto the tracks to save the greatest number of people. In contrast, deontology emphasises the morality of actions themselves, regardless of outcomes. According to this principle, you would not push the man as intentionally harming an innocent person is intrinsically wrong and violates a moral rule “It is forbidden to kill.”
Credit. Authors
Are sacrificial dilemmas a joke?
Sacrificial moral dilemmas have contributed significantly to understanding moral judgments and human morality by providing controlled and simplified frameworks to examine how people reason about right and wrong. However, a recent critique in scientific literature highlights a potential issue: their humourous aspect may distort moral decision-making. The often absurd or incongruous nature of sacrificial scenarios, such as the Footbridge dilemma, can lead us to perceive them as humourous rather than serious.
This perception might diminish the seriousness with which moral judgment is approached, potentially altering our responses. In other words, if the absurdity of the scenario prevents full engagement with its moral implications, our reactions may fail to accurately reflect our true moral intuitions or real-life behaviour. Consequently, the humourous aspects of sacrificial dilemmas could challenge their validity as tools for probing human morality.
However, it is important to note that this critique is hypothetical and requires further investigation to determine whether these moral dilemmas are genuinely perceived as humourous rather than serious.
The serious nature of sacrificial dilemmas
In other words, the question was whether scenarios involving the death of innocent people could be perceived as amusing and elicit amusement. To answer this, three studies were conducted with two main objectives. First, the study investigated the humourous aspects of moral dilemmas (Study 1) and participants’ specific emotional responses (including amusement) to such dilemmas (Study 2). Secondly, individual differences in how these dilemmas are perceived were explored (Study 3), focussing on the need for humour – a personality trait that reflects an individual’s tendency to seek out and generate humour.
In all three studies, the participants were asked to provide moral responses to sacrificial dilemmas, such as the Footbridge dilemma described earlier. They also rated the perceived humour in the scenarios. Their emotional reactions were measured both before and after reading the scenarios, focussing on positive and negative emotions. Finally, the participants’ general tendency to find humour was assessed to determine whether this trait could affect their perception of the dilemmas’ humour.
A consistent pattern of results emerged across the three studies. First, the dilemmas were not rated as funny, a view shared by most participants. Secondly, reading these moral dilemmas led to a general increase in negative emotions and a decrease in positive emotions, especially for mirth and amusement – two emotions typically associated with humour. Finally, the perceived funniness of these sacrificial dilemmas did not vary according to individuals’ need for humour.
Killing is not funny at all
Overall, the studies demonstrated that sacrificial dilemmas, such as the Footbridge dilemma, are not perceived as funny. But why do these dilemmas remain unamusing, even with absurd or exaggerated elements, like pushing someone off a bridge to stop a trolley?
The benign violation theory of humour offers a compelling explanation. According to this theory, something is perceived as funny when it involves a “violation” – a break of a rule, norm, or expectation – that simultaneously feels “benign,” meaning harmless or acceptable. For example, consider someone tripping on the sidewalk. The violation is the unexpected coordination break, but it feels benign because no serious harm occurs, making it easy to laugh at.
Sacrificial dilemmas fail to achieve this balance. The violation in these scenarios – killing an innocent person – is far too serious to be perceived as benign. The emotional and moral gravity of the act overshadows any potential for humour. The high-stakes, life-and-death nature of these dilemmas renders them inherently unfunny. This disconnect between violation and benignity explains why such dilemmas are perceived as serious and devoid of humour.
Conclusion
The critique that sacrificial dilemmas are perceived as humourous – and may, therefore, distort moral judgments – does not hold under scrutiny. Our studies demonstrate that participants generally do not find these scenarios funny, reaffirming the validity of using such dilemmas to examine moral reasoning. However, even if this critique is unwarranted, it underscores the importance of rigorously scrutinising the tools employed in moral psychology. Engaging with and investigating such critiques can only enhance our methodologies and deepen our understanding of how individuals make moral decisions.
Overall, while these studies confirm that sacrificial dilemmas are taken seriously, exposure to black humour jokes has been shown to influence judgments in favor of utilitarianism. In other words, exploring connections between humour and moral transgression continues to captivate the scientific community.
🔬🧫🧪🔍🤓👩🔬🦠🔭📚
Journal reference
Carron, R., Blanc, N., & Brigaud, E. (2024). Humour in trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas: killing is not funny at all. Cognition and Emotion, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2426674
