Experimental evidence on moral judgments in battlefield trolley dilemmas

Hypothetical trolley dilemmas are widely debated in moral philosophy. Judgements regarding the admissibility of sacrificing one life to save many depend on whether individuals apply principles derived from deontological or utilitarian ethics. The standard scenarios used to confront individuals with moral dilemmas, however, are unrealistic. Thus, many scholars question whether the insights they generate are useful for understanding how individuals think about moral decisions in real world settings. In response, behavioral researchers have begun to study trolley dilemmas in experimental and naturally occurring settings they believe to be more realistic or representative of situations more common to everyday life. In this experimental study, we examine individuals’ judgments in trolly dilemmas that occur in battlefield settings. We present participants with a series of vignettes in which a drone pilot located in the United States has to decide whether or not fire a missile at an individual believed to be preparing a car bomb attack. To gain leverage over the dispositional and situational features that affect judgments over the use of lethal force in battle field settings, we manipulate the intended targets of the car bomb attack, whether additional individuals would be killed in the drone attack, and the identities of any collateral fatalities. For each vignette, we ask the participants whether or not the pilot should take the shot.