早稲田政経2016 I

[1]  Would You Kill the Fat Man? is the title of a recent book about a set of moral problems that philosophers like to ponder, and psychologists to put to their experimental subjects. In the standard form, you are on a bridge overlooking a railway track. You see a trolley speeding along the track and, ahead of it, five people tied to the rails. Can these five be saved? There is a very fat man leaning over the railing watching the trolley. If you were to push him off the bridge, he would tumble down and smash onto the track below. He is so obese that his bulk would bring the trolley to a shuddering halt. Sadly, the process would kill the fat man. But it would save the other five. (You cannot stop the trolley by jumping yourself; only the fat man is heavy enough.) Would you kill the fat man? Most people are shocked by the idea of pushing the man to his death. But alter the scenario a bit, and reactions change. People are more likely to pull a lever that would switch the trolley onto another track, where it will kill only one person. The utilitarian calculation is identical ―but the physical and emotional distance from the killing makes pulling the lever much more popular than throwing the man.

[2] There are other ways to influence people's judgments, too. A rather counterintuitive one was reported in a paper published last month in PLOS ONE, a journal. To be specific, when people are asked the fat-man question in a foreign language, they are more likely to kill him for the others' sake. In it, Albert Costa, of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain, and his colleagues found that the language in which the dilemma is posed can alter how people answer.

[3] Costa and his colleagues interviewed 317 people, all of whom spoke two languages ― mostly English plus one of Spanish, Korean, or French. Half of each group were randomly assigned the dilemma in their native tongue. The other half answered the problem in their second language. When asked in their native language, only 20 percent of subjects said they would push the fat man. When asked in the foreign language, the proportion jumped to 33 percent.

[4] Morally speaking, this is a troubling result. The language in which a dilemma is posed should make no difference to how it is answered. Linguists have wondered whether different languages encode different assumptions about morality, which might explain the result. But the effect existed for every combination of languages that the researchers looked at, so culture does not seem to explain things. Other studies in "trolleyology" have found that East Asians are less likely to make the coldly utilitarian calculation, and indeed none of the Korean subjects said they would push the fat man when asked in Korean. But 7.5 percent were prepared to when asked in English.

[5] The explanation seems to lie in the difference between being merely competent in a foreign language and being fluent. The subjects in the experiment were not native bilinguals, but had, on average, begun the study of their foreign language at age 14. (The average age of the subjects was 21.) The participants typically rated their ability with their acquired tongue at close to three on a five-point scale. Their language skills were, in other words, pretty good ―but not great.

[6] Several psychologists, including Daniel Kahneman, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2002 for his work on how people make decisions, think that the mind uses two separate cognitive systems ―one for quick, intuitive decisions and another that makes slower, more reasoned choices. These can conflict, which is what the trolley dilemma is designed to provoke: normal people have a strong moral dislike of killing (the intuitive system), but can nonetheless recognize that one death is, mathematically speaking, better than five (the reasoning system).

[7] This latest study fits with other research which suggests that speaking a foreign language boosts the second system ―provided, that is, you don't speak it as well as a native. Earlier work, by some of the same scholars who performed this new study, found that people tend to fare better on tests of pure logic in a foreign language ―and particularly on questions with an obvious-but-wrong answer and a correct answer that takes time to work out.

[8] Costa and his colleagues hypothesize that, while fluent speakers can form sentences effortlessly, the merely competent must spend more brainpower, and reason much more carefully, when operating in their less-familiar tongue. And that kind of thinking helps to provide psychological and emotional distance, in much the same way as ( G ) As further support for that idea, the researchers note that the effect of speaking the foreign language became smaller as the speaker's familiarity with it increased.

Regardless of the exact mental mechanism behind the team's findings, they could have big implications. Boaz Keysar, a psychologist at the University of Chicago and one of the study's authors, talks of investigating the impact on medical or legal decision-making. Meanwhile, globalization is boosting the number of bilinguals. There are more nonnative English speakers (500 million, by one estimate) than native ones (perhaps 340 million). Big firms are making English their internal language, even if it is not the native tongue of most of their workers. Meetings of international organizations like the United Nations and the European Union are often conducted in languages that are not the preferred ones of most of those attending. Perhaps it is reassuring to think they may be more coolly rational than meetings of monolingual speakers ―unless, that is, you are the metaphorical fat man about to be pushed under a train.

Adapted from "Gained in Translation," The Economist (May 17, 2014), and David Edmonds, Would You Kill the Fat Man?