Greene 等人：The long-standing rationalist tradition in moral psychology emphasizes
the role of reason in moral judgment. A more recent trend places increased emphasis
on emotion.
Greene 等人：The present study was inspired by a family of ethical dilemmas familiar
to contemporary moral philosophers (1). 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.
Greene 等人：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.
评： “现在”,now。呵呵，“Most people say no” ！现在还“考虑”（consider）什么呢？还说自己没抄？替方舟子说法的人可能说了，方不过是引用人家的而已。但是请注意了，上面的前后引号是我加上的，方舟子的文章中这一大段可没有引号。后面也没有括号说明，文末也没有注释和文献说明。
对照之四：
Greene 等人：Taken together, these two dilemmas create a puzzle for moral
philosophers: What makes it morally acceptable to sacrifice one life to save five
in the trolley dilemma but not in the footbridge dilemma?
方舟子的中文写作：“为什么同样是牺牲一个人拯救五个人，人们却会做出不同的道德判断？”
对照之五：
Greene 等人：Many answers have been proposed. For example, one might suggest, in
a Kantian vein, that the difference between these two cases lies in the fact that
in the footbridge dilemma one literally uses a fellow human being as a means to
some independent end, whereas in the trolley dilemma the unfortunate person just
happens to be in the way. This answer, however, runs into trouble with a variant of
the trolley dilemma in which the track leading to the one person loops around
to connect with the track leading to the five people (1). Here we will suppose
that without a body on the alternate track, the trolley would, if turned that way,
make its way to the other track and kill the five people as well. In this variant,
as in the footbridge dilemma, you would use someone's body to stop the trolley
from killing the five. Most agree, nevertheless, that it is still appropriate to
turn the trolley in this case in spite of the fact that here, too, we have a
case of "using."
评：在前面“This answer, however, runs into trouble with” 。一向感觉良好的方舟子似乎没有感觉到自己遇到了麻烦！
对照之六：
Greene 等人：The present results raise but do not answer a more general
question concerning the relation between the aforementioned philosophical
and psychological puzzles:
方舟子中文写作：“但是，这个实验其实并没有解决这些道德难题。”
对照之七：
Greene 等人：How will a better understanding of the mechanisms that give rise to
our moral judgments alter our attitudes toward the moral judgments we make?