[全文听写]：
Hints：
3-D
the journal Emotion
Sophie's Choice
Would you kill a person to save five others? Philosophers have posed this moral dilemma for decades. Typically they present the situation as a mental exercise. A runaway train is about to strike five people walking along the track. And you can reroute the train and save the five people. But you will wind up killing one person walking on the other track. Recently, researchers tried to make the dilemma feel much more real. They placed 147 subjects in a 3-D virtual environment where they are in front of a railroad switch controlling two tracks. They watch five people hike along a track bordered by a ravine. A single person hikes along the other track. Suddenly a train comes barreling down toward the five people. The subject has the option to reroute the train using a joystick. Ninety percent of the study subjects switched tracks, killing the lone hiker to save five. These findings match past studies that were only abstract thought experiments. This study is in the journal Emotion. It appears that even in very realistic, action oriented situations, people will go through with a Sophie's Choice, motivated by accomplishing the apparently greater good.
你愿意牺牲一个人来救五个人吗？ 哲学家们提出这样的一个道德两难已经很多年了。实际上他们将这样的情况作为一种智力练习。一辆失控的火车就要撞上沿着铁轨走路的5个人。你可以改变火车的行程来救这五个人。但是这样的结果是你会牺牲在另一条轨道上行走的一个人。 目前，研究人员试图将这个困境更加真实。他们将147个实验者放入一个虚拟3D 环境中，正好是在一个控制两条轨道的枢纽上。他们看着5个人顺着峡谷边缘的轨道行走。另外一个人沿着另一条轨道行走。突然一辆火车朝着五人开去。实验者可以通过操纵杆选择改变火车的路线。 90%的实验者转换了轨道，牺牲了那一个单独的行走者来救另外五个。这些发现和之前的抽象的思想实验研究相符。这项研究出现在情感杂志中。 这表明即使在很真实的、行为导向的情况下，人们受到明显更优选择的驱使下还是完成这样的两难的选择。【Sophie’s Choice 两难的选择】