Suppose you are standing by a railroad track. Ahead, in a deep cutting from which no escape is possible, five people are walking on the track. You hear a train approaching. Beside you is a lever with which you can switch the train to a sidetrack. One person is walking on the sidetrack. Is it O.K. to pull the lever and save the five people, though one will die?
Which is followed by this question:
Assume now you are on a bridge overlooking the track. Ahead, five people on the track are at risk. You can save them by throwing down a heavy object into the path of the approaching train. One is available beside you, in the form of a fat man. Is it O.K. to push him to save the five?
All very interesting. Supposedly the general public says yes to the first and no to the second, contradicting themselves because the same number of lives are lost. However, the take home point is forseen harm vs. intended hard, which (apparently) many people cannot parse out for themselves, creating an argument for innate morality sans politics, religion, or parenting. I would say yes to both because you have to break some eggs to make an omlette! (Totally inappropriate use of that saying.)
Of course this article and the macabre choice that they forced you to make (throwing a fat person onto a train track I think would count as a little fucked up) made me think of a certain drinking game I was introduced to this weekend. I went to a Halloween Party with a certain doodle/little person and was introduced to "What the F*ck?" It's a drinking game where you have make a choice between two ridiculous answers to even more ridiculous questions such as:
Would you eat your own toe for $10,000,000?