The "car accident" is a straw setup. The real question of this study, and it's blind assumption, is that some human life is more valuable than other human life

The "car accident" is a straw setup. The real question of this study, and it's blind assumption, is that some human life is more valuable than other human life, and that "morality" is the task of baking these judgements into a database. These are all false dilemmas with artificially limited outcomes. In these particular situations, the option of randomly choosing is not even considered by the study. The presumption is that these kinds of things are decidable, not only by human beings, but by well designed machines. I'm feeling really discouraged right now that this even exists, much less out of such a powerful institution as MIT...