When we talk about the trolley problem, actually research has been done on the kinds of people
who are willing to shove the fat guy over the rails.
And what that research has uncovered is that these people tend to be utilitarian's in our
society, okay.
They tend to be people who are able to get the job done, who are less morally squeamish.
Now I've actually presented a variation of this dilemma to various psychopaths.
I'll give an example of what the variation of the dilemma is.
Imagine that you are a transplant surgeon.
And you have five patients all in need of a transplant, heart, lungs, whatever.
Okay?
And they're all gonna die if they don't get that transplant, but there are no matching
donors available.
Just by chance, a young traveler happens to walk past your surgery one day for just a
regular check-up.
And it turns out, hypothetically, that he is a direct match for all five, okay.
Now imagine that you are the transplant surgeon.
Imagine if there was no come back to you, if that traveler somehow disappeared, okay.
Would it be right to kill that young traveler in order to take his five organs to transplant
them into your five patients?
Now, most people -- again it's the five and one life score.
It's exactly like the trolley problem.
But most people would say absolutely not.
No, that's just not right.
It's ethically not right to kill that person.
But I've given this to psychopathic killers and they've said, well actually, you know
what?
Imagine if you were the families of those five guys.
One life lost, is it really that bad when you're saving five others?
What if that guy was an evil terrorist?
And the five guys who needed to transplants were peace workers or aid workers, for instance.
Would that make it any different?
Now, these are kinds of -- not exactly that -- but these are kinds of scenarios, these
are kinds of decisions that world leaders and politicians have to grapple with.
Here's another little one to conjure with.
Imagine that you were, hypothetically, left in a room with a newborn baby, okay.
And you were left in that room for ten minutes with that newborn baby.
And I told you -- and you have to believe this is true -- that that newborn baby will
grow one day into Adolph Hitler, okay.
And I told you that there would be no moral comeback, no legal comebacks on you were you
to kill that baby with a pillow and walk out of that room.
Now, what would you do?
Would you kill that baby and save millions of lives further on down the line in history?
Or would you not be able to do it?
These are moral conundrums, which are kind of played out in everyday life.
I'm obviously reducing these to absurdities.
But these are the kinds of decisions on a lesser level that you have to make if you're
a politician or if you're a world leader.
Sending anyone out in to battle knowing that there's a chance that they might not come
back, committing thousands of troops to a war is something that not many people can
carry lightly on their conscience.
And if you look at psychopathic traits, actually, you know, psychopathic traits are pretty well
represented in politicians and world leaders.
You think about it.
You know, politicians and leaders have to deal with all sorts of nasty kinds of crisis
during their administrations, anything from the threats from rouge states to natural disasters
like hurricanes or floods.
Also, though, they have to be pretty confident to run for office at all.
They have to be very good at presenting themselves in a certain light.
And they have to be very persuasive and manipulative.
I mean, one senior UK politician, who should for obvious reasons remain nameless, had a
great quote.
And he said to me, "You know, in politics the only way to know who's stabbing you in
the back is to see their reflection in the eyes of the person stabbing you from the front."
That's a great kind of quote, which, for me, sums up that kind of snakes and ladders game.
Every man for himself, cut throat, kind of existence that characterizes politics I would
say probably across the board in most nations of the world.