You're driving a purple truck. The breaks go bust. If you go straight, you'll kill 5 workers. If you steer, you'll kill 1 worker. What will you do ? - Lift your eyes, take a second to think - Steer and kill just 1 ? Awesome

Now you're not driving the purple truck. You're on a bridge and see it losing its breaks. There's an extremely fat person next to you. You can push the fat person, stop the truck and save the 5 workers. What will you do ? - Lift your eyes, take a second to think - Stay and Look ? Why ? You killed a person earlier to save the other 5. Why not push the fat guy ?

Michael Sandel raises the case during his Harvard class on political philosophy. What makes you want to save the 5 is the consequentialist / Utilitarian paradigm (5 is better than 1 !). What makes you Not push the fat person though is the categorical paradigm (It's Just wrong to kill a person).

I have a problem with the categorical view and setting principles and rules in stones. Bergson writes “Modern science dates from the day when mobility was set up as an independent reality. It dates from . . . Galileo.” I might be pushing scientific confidence but read this: "Because we think and move at human scale in time and space, we can deceive ourselves. Pre-Copernican astronomies depended on the self-evident fact that the "fixed stars" orbited around the other in a slow annual dance; and it was an advance in science to declare that "atoms" (in Greek, literally "indivisibles") were the changeless building blocks of matter — until we split them. Edward Gibbon could be puzzled by the fall of the Roman Empire without realizing that its most amazing feature was that it lasted so long." - James J. O'Donnell, Edge.org

The point: We might not see it or accept it but Morality is moving. I think Morality can, is being and will be fundamentally disrupted. I think the next frontier in our evolution is Moral disruption. In all cases: Good morning :D