You're looking at an archived, read-only version of our old community forum. See our new community forum here.

Moral Dilemma - What would you do?

jit

Joined: Mar 04 2009

So here are a few questions I found on the internet that really got me thinking. Using very extreme examples like this can you truly reevaluate and understand your ideals and morals. So what is a moral dilemma?

A moral or ethical dilemma refers to a situation in which there is no best possible outcome as all courses of actions result in a breach of ethical or moral interests. You base your decisions by considering the following:
Who benefits? Who is harmed? What are the benefits? What is harmed? What are the effects of yourself and those who are involved?

You also take into perspective if you think:
1) by the numbers(saving 3 people is better than saving 1)
2) though emotionally attachment(someone I love is more important than other people)
3) who bears the emotional burden (do I carry the guilt myself, or shift it to others)
4) personal gain (this will help me more than this option

Here, I made a short, but very tough questionnaire that will test who you really are.
Moral Dilemma Test
Please post your train of thought here as I'm curious to see if you would do what I would. Also, please post your answers here since I can't post the link of the survey results from SurveyMonkey unless I do it manually. If I get enough results and disparity, I'll post the statistics.

I think the most important

cheesemeister

Joined: Jan 15 2013

I think the most important moral dilemma is what I do with my free time, because it is clearly the bottleneck for my advancement in life. It's not even really a dilemma...just the most important thing I could improve.

Heh, sorry, off subject.

what if, what if, what if,

RexLeRouge

IMPACTO

Joined: Aug 15 2008

what if, what if, what if, ...

Like I always say: if my mom had a pair, I'd call her dady.

My thoughts on the first

thedstring

Nate Brooks

Location: Utah

Joined: Jan 05 2011

My thoughts on the first question without spoiling the question for anyone.

I personally don't think I would do the act, not because of any moral reason, but because I don't think I could bring myself to do it with almost no time for thought. I don't think, biologically and psychologically speaking, that this act is the first thing people would jump to with only a moment's thought. The "what's good for the many" debate wouldn't have time to play out in your head, so by default, everyone would suffer.

I would probably just try to "hush" or isolate myself by fleeing, which could either save my life or destroy us both, but it might divert attention to me and save the group. Fleeing is a very common human response in a fast reaction type of moment.

I only looked at the first

cheesemeister

Joined: Jan 15 2013

I only looked at the first two scenarios, and they both have problems. If there's any concern about spoiling the questions, don't read further, people!

***

In the first one, there's no guarantee that silencing the baby will keep the raiders from finding you. Also, you don't have to kill a baby to silence it. wtf.

In the second one, you set it up so that the train "probably" won't stop in time to not hit the girl, but then you have a choice between "killing the girl" and "killing the teens". Point being, if it's going slowly enough that I might be able to stop before hitting the girl, then if I switched it to the teen track, certainly the teens would SEE the train if I kept slowing down, and get out of the way. Why include this business about "probably"? Why not just say "the train's brakes have failed"?

I'm not gonna lie, I thought

ChelseaRare

Location: New York

Joined: Dec 01 2008

I'm not gonna lie, I thought this was another spam thread.

----------

(.?!)

Re: I only looked at the first

jit

Joined: Mar 04 2009

thedstring said

My thoughts on the first question without spoiling the question for anyone.

I personally don't think I would do the act, not because of any moral reason, but because I don't think I could bring myself to do it with almost no time for thought. I don't think, biologically and psychologically speaking, that this act is the first thing people would jump to with only a moment's thought. The "what's good for the many" debate wouldn't have time to play out in your head, so by default, everyone would suffer.

I would probably just try to "hush" or isolate myself by fleeing, which could either save my life or destroy us both, but it might divert attention to me and save the group. Fleeing is a very common human response in a fast reaction type of moment.

Understandable. And a perfectly good reason to end up with up with the second option without actually choosing it. As for your "third" option, you're still gambling on getting caught, which would hint the raiders that there are still people alive. You could also run away successfully, but shoulder the guilt of leaving your fellow villagers that are later caught and murdered. And finally, you could actually all survive as the best scenario. Which is exactly why I didn't put that as an option = I should have added to the scenario that there isn't time to escape. But I like your train of thought.

cheesemeister said

In the first one, there's no guarantee that silencing the baby will keep the raiders from finding you. Also, you don't have to kill a baby to silence it. wtf.

In the second one, you set it up so that the train "probably" won't stop in time to not hit the girl, but then you have a choice between "killing the girl" and "killing the teens". Point being, if it's going slowly enough that I might be able to stop before hitting the girl, then if I switched it to the teen track, certainly the teens would SEE the train if I kept slowing down, and get out of the way. Why include this business about "probably"? Why not just say "the train's brakes have failed"?

I do have to reword the second one, thanks. As for the first one, while it doesn't guarantee your safety, you are giving everyone the higher chance for survival, thus giving everyone as a whole priority over one person. While there may be other ways to silencing your baby, you realize that they are very close by, and the quickest course of action to stop a baby from uncontrollably crying is to kill the baby. The whole point of this is to determine whether you have choose through emotions or by numbers trying to play hero, and if you rather take the burden of killing your own child or your willing to sacrifice everyone because you couldn't bear the thought of killing your baby. Sure, there is countless variables and things to account for, but imo, giving ultimatums is an effective way to assess your morals/beliefs/ideology.

Your missing the point. The

amz181

Joined: Oct 07 2008

Your missing the point. The scenario may be entirely unrealistic and doesnt take into account all factors, but the idea is that you only have two options that will lead to a two outcomes. It's a thought experiment, not the real world. All that exists are those two options.

EDIT: Meant to direct that to the peoples above, not jittington.

Re: Your missing the point. The

jit

Joined: Mar 04 2009

amz181 said

Your missing the point. The scenario may be entirely unrealistic and doesnt take into account all factors, but the idea is that you only have two options that will lead to a two outcomes. It's a thought experiment, not the real world. All that exists are those two options.

EDIT: Meant to direct that to the peoples above, not jittington.

Haha thanks, and I fixed the second question to make it more believable, but still leading to the same outcomes.

Oh and for the first

ChelseaRare

Location: New York

Joined: Dec 01 2008

Oh and for the first question, if I really had to choose between those two, and ignoring every other possible what if factor out there, I'd go with letting the kid scream and cry. I guess the logic I'll go with is that I'd rather have a scenario in which everyone has the same fate, in this case dying.

For the second question, I really don't care who'd get hit with the train. If my niece or random teenagers are that stupid to be playing or hanging out on train tracks AND not notice a train on it's way then they deserve to die. And I'll go with the whole survival of the fittest logic on that one.

----------

(.?!)

Question 1. I assume

Bhael

Location: Newcastle, UK

Joined: Feb 18 2010

Question 1. I assume everybody getting killed includes myself, in which case I'd be forced to kill the baby. If I were a) female, and b) gave birth to it I might find this impossible to do. Since neither of these will be true I'll shed a few tears and get over it.

Question 2. If the fault is truly with the machine and in no way my own, I won't be getting charged. With this logic the amount of people I kill doesn't matter, especially considering the situation. If I chose to kill my niece over a few strangers my family and co may never forgive me, and they might not be something I'm willing to loose.

Question 3. Doctor's an obvious one, as it's likely I'll get worse than a mild fever in these conditions. I'd say getting the Sailor's pretty obvious too, as his expertise/equipment could be used to call a rescue party among other things.

Question 4. This one's much harder than question 1 as I have a strong human attachment to this one from years of proximity. Still, in terms of logic the choice is obviously to kill him. If everyone is dead in this scenario save you it's likely you'll be turned into some kind of guinea pig at best. I'd say I'd be able to kill him myself, considering kicking a chair is much easier than strangulation.

Question 5. Save my fiance. I'm pretty much a polygamist anyway.

I knew this was going to be

karathrow

Joined: Oct 26 2010

I knew this was going to be the runaway trolley shit.

Push da fat gai. It will inspire people to lose weight so they don't get pushed in front of vehicles.

I believe I chose all of the

BacardiBreezer

My life is a chip in your pile. Ante up!

Location: NE Ohio

Joined: Aug 16 2010

I believe I chose all of the first answers. Ultimately, the survival of the human race is most important. Sometimes we make sacrifices. I chose the pregnant woman and the sailor for the boat. If I was sick, I'd get over it, but I need to know where to go, and again I'd be more about creating more human life. It would suck to have to be the one to decide to take another's life but if it's for the greater good then I think we'd harden and get on with life.

My train of thought

Crazymoogle

Crazymoogle

Location: SoCal

Joined: Mar 30 2012

1) By my nature, I'm responsible for this baby's well-being, so I couldn't take its life. Simple as that.

2) Sorry, the niece is four years old in my case. Seven teenagers should know better, she's just young and ignorant. I'd shout at her mom and dad until I was blue in the face, however, for being such horrible parents (theoretically).

3) Young boy, pregnant woman. If a cruise liner sunk, there will be help on the way. I would have to choose the most years of life.

4) Pull the chair. I love the boy, but if he will die in any end of the story, I might as well try to save some lives.

5) My fiance. I may be upset at her but I still love her more than whoever this other person in the car is.

I think that this is really a pretty good test. All of my answers, although, were easily and usually quickly chosen, but I guess that might just be me since I seem to be a bit more selfish.

1. I choke my baby. It's my

surreal

Eric: tank,godlike

Location: Arizona

Joined: Jan 04 2009

1. I choke my baby. It's my fault for allowing my baby of all babies to be in this scenario and I must take responsibility for that.

2. I must be a pretty perceptive train conductor to spot a blood relative from the train.

3. HELP ME I'M DROWNING AND I'M PREGNANT TOO BTW. What an attention whore. I'll go with children first cause that's what a classy sailor would do.

4. Chances are it's my fault for not trying harder to leave the area/country/province/whatever before the space nazi's established the martian concentration camps. I gotta own up and pull that chair, it's too unfair to let all the family die for my previous stupidity.

5. I'd save that bitch and walk.

WWED (what would eric do)

Jacob31593

Location: Tampa, FL

Joined: Jan 04 2009

WWED (what would eric do) bracelets are now available at a bloodpit or spitpool near you

Re: WWED (what would eric do)

Ranulf

I will not join your gametabs.

Joined: Oct 15 2009

I'll take five.

(No subject)

Hakoria

Laon King

Location: gmt+1

Joined: Apr 03 2011

unDA, unDA, un-da, unDA,

cheesemeister

Joined: Jan 15 2013

unDA, unDA, un-da, unDA, unDA, un-da...

Moral dilemma: You almost

Hakoria

Laon King

Location: gmt+1

Joined: Apr 03 2011

Moral dilemma: You almost destroyed the world. What would you do?

-be intelligent, man up and stop fucking up
-fuck up and trigger the end of the world once again

Lol eva 3.0, "had a bad day? Just watch Shinji being an emotional shitwreck and fucking up like always!"
Got my dose of Asuka, the only reason I watched it, so I enjoyed Shinji and the rest's stupidity. They ripped off the char design of Jet from CB though, tsk. Too much Kaworu as well.

Is this 2004 and I'm on

Pasto

Eat your Pasta ! ! !

Joined: Mar 25 2009

Is this 2004?
Am I on 4chan?
D:

----------

"Pasta Is Good For You" - The Pasta Guy

This is pretty cool. I found

smiley

shadock number zo zo bu zo meu ga

Location: Laputa

Joined: Jul 04 2008

This is pretty cool. I found myself choosing the family member over the others...except the son in the concentration camp.