Language Issue a moral dilemma

[david44]

Ever wondered why that French waiter was so rude?
That immigration officer so curt or your partner's abrupt "ending"

A new report suggests speaking in a foreign language may be a factor?
I am myself only too aware of this having been talking bollox for years.

Here's the source
Would you push a stranger off a bridge? How your morals depend on language - Science - News - The Independent

Would you push a stranger off a bridge? How your morals depend on language.

You’re on a railway bridge. Below you, a train is heading full speed towards five unsuspecting people working on the track. There is a fat man standing on the bridge with you. If you shoved him off, his impact would stop the train, and you would save the five workers. Would you push him?

According to new research, your answer to that question depends largely on whether you are reading it as a native English speaker, or as someone with a different mother tongue.

Researchers from the University of Chicago and the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona presented this moral dilemma to 725 participants, most of whom were native speakers of Spanish with English as a foreign language, or native speakers of English with Spanish as a foreign language.

They discovered that when participants were presented with the dilemma in their native tongue, they were far less likely to opt for pushing the fat man than those who read the description in their second language. Native English speakers were almost twice as likely to push "el hombre grande" than "the large man".

Breaking a moral code by killing the bystander seems easier to do when considering the problem in a language learnt later in life. The authors of the study attribute this to the fact that foreign language appears to trigger a less emotional response, leaving people more able to make a pragmatic decision.

"This discovery has important consequences for our globalised world, as many individuals make moral judgments in both native and foreign languages," Boaz Keysar, Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago, told Science Daily.

He suggests, for example, that immigrants may be better equipped to act as jury members, as they are likely to experience less of an emotional response to the evidence presented in the local language. In other situations, an adherence to moral rules could be more important than the ability to make a cool, utilitarian analysis of the facts. In such cases, it may be beneficial to communicate in a person’s native tongue.

To clarify the role emotions play in mediating the effect between language and moral decision making, the researchers included a second dilemma. In their alternative scenario, the lone man is on a different branch of the railway track, and all you would need to do to save the five workers (and kill that single man), is to divert the train by switching a lever. This is a less emotional action, and regardless of language, the majority of people would divert the train in this way (around 80%).

The effect of language only comes into play when dealing with a higher level of emotion, such as imagining having to physically push the man off the bridge. In that unpleasant scenario, only 18% of native speakers would sacrifice the large man, compared to 44% of those questioned in a foreign language.

According to co-author Sayuri Hayakawa, the connection between language and emotion makes sense. "You learn your native language as a child and it is part of your family and your culture. You probably learn foreign languages in less emotional settings like a classroom. The emotional content of the language is often lost in translation," she told Science Daily.

The findings of the study do suggest, however, that the greater an individual’s proficiency in a foreign language, the more closely their decision patterns resemble those of native speakers. This suggests that increased familiarity with a language brings an emotional grounding which can match that of a mother tongue.

With hugely significant ethical questions being addressed in international politics in a range of languages that are native to some, and foreign to others, the importance of understanding the effect of language on decision making seems clear.

Albert Costa of the Pompeu Fabra University and leader of the present study, says that being able to predict how language affects our judgement is fundamental in making informed choices on how communications take place.

[VocalNeal]

I guess in my own language i would figure the fat man is an innocent bystander and the guys working on the track should be smart enough to post one as a look out.

[bobo746]

having been talking bollox for years.

Amen.

[chassamui]

But entertaining bollux none the less. The obese westerner deserves to die for over consumtion of McDonalds menus written in Spanish.

[Albert Shagnastier]

[dirk diggler]

Can we still push the fat kunt off if there are no workers to save? Can we supply our own workers to justify our actions?

[baldrick]

if you want to read it in depth

Would You Kill the Fat Man?: The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and Wrong by David Edmonds


A runaway train is racing toward five men who are tied to the track. Unless the train is stopped, it will inevitably kill all five men. You are standing on a footbridge looking down on the unfolding disaster. However, a fat man, a stranger, is standing next to you: if you push him off the bridge, he will topple onto the line and, although he will die, his chunky body will stop the train, saving five lives. Would you kill the fat man?
The question may seem bizarre. But it's one variation of a puzzle that has baffled moral philosophers for almost half a century and that more recently has come to preoccupy neuroscientists, psychologists, and other thinkers as well. In this book, David Edmonds, coauthor of the best-selling Wittgenstein's Poker, tells the riveting story of why and how philosophers have struggled with this ethical dilemma, sometimes called the trolley problem. In the process, he provides an entertaining and informative tour through the history of moral philosophy. Most people feel it's wrong to kill the fat man. But why? After all, in taking one life you could save five. As Edmonds shows, answering the question is far more complex--and important--than it first appears. In fact, how we answer it tells us a great deal about right and wrong.

Zippyshare.com - Would You Kill the Fat Man__ The Tr (344).rar

Can we still push the fat kunt off

maybe 2 to be sure

[BaitongBoy]

He must be a huge fcker to stop a train...Then how could you push the fat fck?...Reasoning skills should trump language skills...

[david44]

He must be a huge fcker to stop a train...Then how could you push the fat fck?...Reasoning skills should trump language skills...

Delegate ?
A Thai woman can push almost any man to the edge, from there gravity's rainbow....

It is an intriguing puzzle and thank yo Baldrick for the trolley original.
The fact the choice is a FAT man seems to load the dice, a bus load of 4 orphans as in the Billy Conolly song would increase the angst kill 4 to save 5?