早稲田政経 2016 I

I

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.

( A )

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 ( B ) tongue. The other half answered the problem in their second language. When asked in their ( C ) language, only 20 percent of subjects said they would push the fat man. When asked in the ( D ) language, the proportion jumped to 33 percent.

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.

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 ( E ). Their language skills were, in other words, pretty good ―but not great.

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).

This latest study fits with other research which suggests that speaking a foreign language boosts the second system ―provided, that is, you ( F ) 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.

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?


1 Choose the most suitable order of sentences from those below to fill in blank space (A).
(a) A rather counterintuitive one was reported in a paper published last month in PLOS ONE, a journal.
(b) 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.
(c) There are other ways to influence people's judgments, too.
(d) 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.

2 Choose the most suitable combination of words from those below to fill in blank spaces (B), (C), and (D).
(a) foreign ― foreign ― native (b) foreign ―native ―foreign
(c) native―foreign ―native (d) native ― native ― foreign
(e)  native ― native ― native

3 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to complete the following sentence.
The writer thinks the findings of Costa and his colleagues are morally troubling because
(a) a combination of languages is said to be the key to understanding morality.
(b) dealing with a dilemma should not be influenced by the language used.
(c) East Asians tend to make the same decisions regardless of language.
(d) many linguists have disagreed with the conclusions of the study.
(e) there seem to be a number of hidden cultural factors behind the research.

4 Use the seven words below to fill in blank space (E) in the best way. Indicate your choices for the second, fourth, and sixth positions. 
(a) a (b) close (c) five-point (d) on (e) scale (f) three (g) to

5 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to fill in blank space ( F ).
(a) aren't ignorant of the culture of the language.
(b) become as fluent as a native speaker.
(c) don't speak it as well as a native.
(d) speak three or more languages.
(e) started studying the language as an adult.

6 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to fill in blank space (G).
(a) asking the fat man to join the other five.
(b) forcing the fat man to jump.
(c) putting the fat man on the trolley.
(d) refusing to help the fat man.
(e) replacing the fat man with a lever.

7 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to complete the following sentence.
The writer suggests, based on the findings of Costa and his colleagues, that
(a) linguists are unconcerned about the language used in medicine and law.
(b) meetings conducted by monolingual speakers might produce the most rational results.
(c) speakers who are merely competent in a foreign language often suffer psychologically and emotionally.
(d) the use of English, for example, may contribute to rational decision-making at international organizations.

(e) there is no significant difference between fluency and competence in foreign languages

印刷用

解答は全訳の下

　｢太った男を殺しますか？｣というのは｣11近の著書のタイトルで，哲学者ならよく考え，心理学矜なら実験の被験者たちに問いたがる逆徳的な問題を扱っている。標準的な形ではこうだ。あなたは跨線橋の上にいて線路を見下ろしている。路面電車が線路上を疾走しており，その前方には５人が線路に縛りつけられているのが||に入る。この５人を救うことはできるだろうか？　ｌ人のとても太った男が僑の手すりから身を来り出すようにして路面電車を眺めている。もしあなたが披を橋から突き落とせば，彼は転落して奥下の線路上にたたきつけられるだろう。彼はとても太っているので，その巨体のせいで路面電車は人きく震動して停止するだろう。悲しむべきことだが。その過程で太った男は死ぬだろう。しかし，そのおかげであとの５人は助かるだろう(あなたは自分が飛び込むことで路面電車を止めることはできず。太った男だけがそれができるだけの体重があるものとする)。あなたは太った男を殺すだろうか？

　たいていの人はその男を突き藩として殺すなどという考えに衝撃を受ける。しかし。その筋書きをちょっと変えると。反応は変わる。路面電車を別の線路に引き込むレバーなら。引く可能性はさらに高くなるのだ。そうすることでそちらの線路1二にいる｜人だけは殺すことになるとしても。である。功利主義的な計算では同じことなのだが。しかし。殺すという行為から肉体的。感情的に距離をとれることで，はるかに多くの人がその男性を突き落とすより，レバーを引く行為を選ぶのである。

　人々の判断に影響を与える方法は他にもある。どちらかというと直観に反する方法が．雑誌の「プロス・ワン」の先月号で公表された論文の中で報じられている．その論文では．スペインのポンペウ・ファブラ大学のアルベルト＝コスタと彼の共|川研究軒らは．そのジレンマがどの言語で突きつけられるかで人々がどう答えるかが変わる可能性があるということを発見している。具体的に言うと，人々は太った男の質問を外国語でされると．あとの人たちのために彼を殺す可能性が高まるのである．

　コスタと彼の共同研究者らは317人にインタビューをおこなったが．その全11が２カ国語－スペイン謡，韓国語．フランス語のいずれか一一つに加えて人半は英語を話す人たちだった．それぞれのグループの半数が無作為にそのジレンマを雌川語で与えられた．残りの半数はその問越に第二丿語で答えた．母国語で尋ねられた場合，太った男を突き落とすと答えたのは被験者のわずか20パーセントだった．外国語で尋ねられると．その比率は33パーセントに跳ね上がったのである．

　道徳的に言うと，これは悩ましい結果である．ジレンマがどの言語で突きつけられるかで，それにどう答えるかに差など出ないはずである．言語学者は，異なる言語では倫理観に関して異なる前提をコード化するのではないかと考えてきたし．それでその結果の説明がっくかもしれないI，しかし．その影響は．研究者が調べたどの言語の組み合わせでも存在したので．文化では事の説明はつかないようだ．「トロリー学」の他の研究では，束アジア人は冷徹な功利主義的計算をする可能性が低いことがわかっており．実際に．韓閥人の被験軒は皆．韓国語で問われると．その太った男を突き落とすだろうとは言わなかった．しかし，英語で問われると. 7.5パーセントの人はそうする覚悟をしていたのだ．

　その説明は，ある外川語が単によくできるだけか，流暢にしゃべれるかの述いにあるのかもしれない．その実験の被験者たちは生まれつき２カ川語を話せたわけではなく.’1￡均して14歳から外川語を刊い始めていた（被験行のヽ|゜均年齢は21歳だった）．実験に参加した人たちは大体. n分が身につけた語学力を５点満点で３に近い程度だとしていた．その人たちの語学力は言い換えると．かなりよいが．卓越しているというほどではなかった．

　人がどうやって決定を下すかに関する研究で2002年にノーベル経済学賞を受賞したダニエル＝カーネマンを含む何人かの心理学者は．脳は二つの別個の認知体系一片方は素早くill:観的に決定を下すためのもの．もう一つはじっくり，もっと筋の通った選択をするものｰを使用すると考えている．この二つは対立することがあり．トロリー・ジレンマが引き起こすことを||的としているのがそれである．普通の人は殺人に対して強い道徳的嫌悪感を抱く（111C知的体系で）が．それでも１人の死の方が，数学的見地から言うと，５人よりはましなのだ（論理的思考体系で）．

　この最新の研究は．外国語を話すことで二つ目の体系が活発になることを示唆する別の研究とも一致するｰもっとも．それはつまり，あなたが外国語を母国語ほど上手に話せない場合は．ということだ．この新たな研究をおこなった，同じ学名･たちの何人かによるもっと以前の研究では．外同語で純枠に論理的なテスト―特に．わかりやすいが間違った答えと，觧くのに時間がかかるが正しい答えのある質問では．さらに成績がよくなる傾向があることがわかっている．

　コスタと彼の共同研究者らは，流暢にしゃべれる人は何の苦もなく文を作ることができるが，単に語学力があるというだけの人たちは，なじみの薄い41‘謡で頭を働かせる際は，さらに頭を使い．注意深く推論するにちがいないとの仮説を立てている．さらにそういう類の思考は．太った男をレバーで置き換えるのとほぽ同じように．心理的かつ感情的に距離をおくのに役立つ．その考え力をさらに実証するものとして．研究者たちは外国語を話すことによる影響は．話者がその言語にさらに桁通するにつれて小さくなると指摘する．

　その研究チームの様々な発見の背後にある心的メカニズムが正確にはどのようなものにせよ，それには大きな意味合いがある．シカゴ大学の心理学者であるボアズ＝キーサーはその研究の著者のＩ人だが．医療や法律分野での意思決定に及ぼす影響を研究をしていると語る．その一方で，グローバル化により２カ川語を話す人たちの数は増えている．母語ではないが英語を話す人（ある推定では５億人）の方が，母語として英語を話す人（おそらく３億4 千万人）より多いのだ．大企業は英語を，たとえそれが従業員の大半の雌語でなくても，社内の公用語にしようとしている．閥連や欧州連合のような国際機関の会議は出席者の大半が好む言語ではない言語でおこなわれることも多い．おそらく．その会談は一言語だけ話す人たちの会議より冷静に理にかなったものとなるかもしれないと思うと心強いだろう―つまり．あなたがそのたとえで言うところの，今にも突き落とされて列車の下敷きになろうとしている太った男でなければ．の話である．