主题：【整理】黎阳：为肖传国说句公道话（一个海归的杯具） -- 迷途笨狼

One such dilemma is the trolley dilemma: A runaway trolley is headed for five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. The only way to save them is to hit a switch that will turn the trolley onto an alternate set of tracks where it will kill one person instead of five. Ought you to turn the trolley in order to save five people at the expense of one? Most people say yes.

其中较著名的一个是“电车难题”：假设有一列失控的有轨电车飞奔而来，前面有两条轨道，一条站着五个人，一条站着一个人。如果不扳道岔，电车将冲向第一条轨道压死五个人。那么是否应该扳道岔，将电车引向另一条轨道，压死上面的那一个人？大多数人会回答应该，因为牺牲一个人拯救五个人是值得的。

. However, if you cite their work word-by-word, you need to put these words into brackets, so that people will not be confused to think that you wrote these words. You can refer to Scientific American for how to write acceptable 科普文章.

Now consider a similar problem, the footbridge dilemma. As before, a trolley threatens to kill five people. You are standing next to a large stranger on a footbridge that spans the tracks, in between the oncoming trolley and the five people. In this scenario, the only way to save the five people is to push this stranger off the bridge, onto the tracks below. He will die if you do this, but his body will stop the trolley from reaching the others. Ought you to save the five others by pushing this stranger to his death? Most people say no.

现在，再考虑另一个难题：同样有一列失控的有轨电车飞奔而来，前方的轨道上站着五个人，处于危险之中。在电车和五个人中间，隔着一座天桥，桥上站着一位陌生的大胖子。拯救这五个人的唯一办法，是把这个大胖子推下天桥，电车将他撞死后就会停下来。那么是否应该把这个人推下桥去拯救五个人？大多数人会对这个“天桥难题”说不应该

. If you interpret these people's work in your own words, attaching references behind is enough.