I’ll get back to you soon about India. Right now, I’m preparing to catch a train and I’ve got to run.

And I’d like to hear from you too about everything, your process on choosing a future, the philosophy club, work, Will, etc. Do you think people from the Augie phil club could be convinced to join “subjectively true?”

In the second example, however, a number of important factors change. First, and most relevant, the death of the large man is the direct means by which you save the lives of the five individuals. His death is not an unintended consequence of a laudable means, it is a despicable means through which you seek the better of two regrettable consequences. However, this scenario also changes how personal we get with the subject, and it “dirties” the hands of you as the moral agent a little bit more.

Thus, example #3 seeks to preserve the choice between using the regrettable and perhaps morally disgusting use of the death of one as the means by which others are saved, without getting up-close-and-personal with the fat man.

Does this fine-line distinction end up mattering at all? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is yes. Different proportions of people answer each of these different scenarios differently. Not only that, but functional MRI brain scans of persons indicate that different parts of the brain are active depending on which of these situations they examine. In “personal” moral situations, like the bridge scenario for example, people tend to have more active emotional responses, and they are much less likely to kill the portly man.

Thanks, by the way, for taking a peek at the article. It’s unfortunate that you couldn’t have been present for discussion. I’d love to hear more about the article you’ve gotten your hands on, or anything else you’ve been studying or doing.