Much less likely? That would require that such drafting be more likely on bridges than elesewhere
The problem induced by pushing the fat guy off is that people don’t know which zones now count as “sacrificial lamb” zones (because of the bizarreness of the deviation from social norms), except that bridges over densely-populated trolley tracks are one of them, so I think the resulting world meets this criterion.
one is more likely to find oneself one of the million saved than the one person sacrificing, so most everyone should agree to a policy that those in positions to offer incredible help be drafted.
But people are already choosing risk profiles that, under present social norms, cause them to die when near tracks that have an errant trolley coming, so it’s not clear why they’d make tradeoffs (giving up other things they value) for greater near-trolley safety, and thus not clear why they’d prefer this at all.
In this case, the cost (borne by everyone in the area, not just people near tracks) is that they have to re-organize their lives around choosing routes that avoid sacrificial lamb zones. But—by the scenario’s stipulation—people aren’t currently choosing to bear the additional cost to be on the safer bridge rather than the dangerous track. (If they were, the scenario would involve millions crossing the bridge and few near the track.) What they are choosing is to bear the risk of death because of the convenience it affords.
And because the option of pushing someone off the track tells people, “Okay, you have to be a lot more risk averse to get your current level of risk”, they’re forced to pay more for the same safety.
The problem induced by pushing the fat guy off is that people don’t know which zones now count as “sacrificial lamb” zones (because of the bizarreness of the deviation from social norms), except that bridges over densely-populated trolley tracks are one of them, so I think the resulting world meets this criterion.
But people are already choosing risk profiles that, under present social norms, cause them to die when near tracks that have an errant trolley coming, so it’s not clear why they’d make tradeoffs (giving up other things they value) for greater near-trolley safety, and thus not clear why they’d prefer this at all.
In this case, the cost (borne by everyone in the area, not just people near tracks) is that they have to re-organize their lives around choosing routes that avoid sacrificial lamb zones. But—by the scenario’s stipulation—people aren’t currently choosing to bear the additional cost to be on the safer bridge rather than the dangerous track. (If they were, the scenario would involve millions crossing the bridge and few near the track.) What they are choosing is to bear the risk of death because of the convenience it affords.
And because the option of pushing someone off the track tells people, “Okay, you have to be a lot more risk averse to get your current level of risk”, they’re forced to pay more for the same safety.