There's no such thing as fairness.

I accidentally came across an article titled "Reflections on Fairness," which tells a story like this:

A group of children were playing outside where there were two sets of train tracks — one still in use and the other abandoned. Only one child chose to play on the abandoned track, while all the other children played on the track that was still in use... Unfortunately, a train came (and as expected, it was heading towards the track with many children still in use). You happen to be standing next to the track switch, so you can divert the train to the abandoned track, thereby saving the majority of the children; however, the child on the abandoned track will be sacrificed.

What would you do?

It is said that most people would choose to save more people, meaning sacrificing the child who was playing on the abandoned track...

But this raises another question: The child who chose the abandoned track obviously made the right decision by separating from his friends and choosing a safer place. His friends, on the other hand, ignorantly or recklessly chose to play in a dangerous area. Why should the person who made the correct choice have to sacrifice themselves for the ignorance of the majority?

The article mentions three thought-provoking questions:

**Thought 1:** There's always a bigger picture beyond what we see.

**Thought 2:** Fairness can be viewed from different angles.

**Thought 3:** The outcome of this game can only be decided by the person standing next to the switch.

It’s said that this content was part of an email sent by Microsoft to its employees. Faced with such a dilemma (assuming there is no other way out), how would you decide?