Moral Dilemmas (What would you do?)

[Shaazzyam]

Nah I agree with him, you're being a douche.

I kind of agree with your point but your being so hostile it is kind of embarrassing. Your throwing insults over freaking hypothetical situations.

One thing you did prove though is these types of questions/discussions are never productive, so props for that.

That's fine. I'm not trying to be his best friend.

He's entitled to his opinions, I shouldn't have said anything... regardless of how narrow-minded and hypocritical they are.

 

[TATAKAE]

So many of us have read comics/books/watched movies/heard stories of that amazing hero who always does the right thing no matter what and is willing to make the right decision at the right time. Some of them won't kill some won't do anything outrageous but at the end of the day they still end up leaving the good guys.

The question is...what if I told you that not everything you read/watch is actually true? I'm sure you've guys have played games like the Walking Dead and the Wolf Among us where if a guy was sticking a gun at your face you would choose the "calm him down" option instead of the "fuck him up" option. Of course not everybody would do that.......

Anyways a few years ago I took a psychology class and one of the units was on moral dilemmas and what it showed about someone's personality and psychological mindset so if you guys are willing I'd like to post some moral dilemmas.

If people like this I'll post more. I have loads of these and some are way harder than the simple one's I'll post here. I always find these so fun because it turns out that at the end of the day, some of us might still be bad people.You might have heard of them before but still, tell us what you would do and why? I'm not going to give you a psychoanalysis. yes I am.

NO YOU CANNOT ADAPT OR CHANGE THE STORY IN THESE DILENMAS. NO, "WHY CAN'T I JUST SAVE EVERYONE?" / "I'LL JUST PULL OUT MY BATMAN AND SAVE THEM"

Think of this as a complex would you rather.
(It requires imagination. Some of these are ridiculously situational ie I don't have a brother/daughter/wife. why would I be in a cave? etc. Instead of thinking about ways to break the story you should be thinking about why you're such a bad person.





1.
You're driving a train. You realize that it's gone out of control and that you can't stop it. Down the road there are 4 innocent kids are crossing the tracks and you realize that you can't stop and are going to crush them. You do realize that you can turn to the tracks on your right which for some odd reason your brother is on. Do you head straight forward to protect your family or turn and kill your brother at the benefit of the others?

1.a
This is for those that chose the "righteous" path and chose not to kill the kids but instead kill your brother at the benefit of their lives. I'm guessing that you have the mentality of "Saving more lives is better'. Ok good for you. What if this time you were just a mere onlooker ontop of a cliff looking down? You see that the car is going down this one path and about to hit the 4 kids but this time you have a very large man standing next to you watching it happen. You realize that you're too small to stop the trolley but if you were to push the man off the cliff he WILL be able to stop the train (Guaranteed) and save the life of the 4 kids, but this will immediately kill him. Do you push him off to save the lives of many? Or does your righteousness only kick in when your hands aren't going to be stained?

2.
You are aboard a plane. As it takes off and over international waters you realize that it has been hijacked by terrorist. They have locked themselves into the pilots cabin and there is no way you can get in (Guns fists ect). You do however see that there is a vent somehow leading inside and that you can somehow pour some gaseous poison in that will kill them. Here is where the dilemma kicks in. If you kill them, the plane will go down and you have just doomed everybody on the plane. You were basically the reason that those 300 innocent people died. If you do not kill them there is a possibility that they will land and use you as hostages for money or other reasons. But of course they are terrorist and you do run the risk of them causing another 9/11 and killing more lives than just those on the plane but in face other bystanders because of your inaction. What do you do?

3.
Aliens. Yes Aliens have come to earth and they have chose you as a special specimen to examine because they lack emotion. They are willing to cure all disease/poverty/hunger on earth essentially making it a living utopia. There is a catch though, you have to torture your 12 year old daughter and they have to watch you do it. You cannot kill her but have to torture her with her awake and aware that you are the one doing it the whole time. After torturing her she will die but not before experiencing her own parent torture her for days. Our biological reaction would be to protect our own flesh and blood but what about the lives of the other 4 children? Woops did I say 4 children? I meant 7 billion other people.

Well those are the simple basic ones.

Idk it's the summer i'm bored. Do you feel like a worse person after answering those questions? Tell me what the fighting community Is like

Ok finally have time to sit down umm
1. My brother is my brother but.....the life of 4. I......He probably would understand. For 4 kids I would jump in front of a train for them to push them off so I'm sure he would understand.
1.a. I would would though D: I would try jumping myself in vain but killing someone is fucked up but still...it has to be done
2. I have to agree with most people here. You never know what's going to happen should try it.
3. I wouldn't torture her. The world is fine as it is and I have no shame protecting a kid

 

[Reaper040]

Kill my brother, push the fatass in front of the train, wait for the plane to land then poison the cockpit, and save the daughter. Your own life would be awful, fuck mankind

 

[Faded Dreams V]

1. I would run over my brother. I never really liked or cared for him. Logical choice is to save the 4 kids. Replace brother with sister, and I'd choose to save her over the kids. This is someone I'm directly affiliated with, have a connection with, love, and has a family of her own that I also have a connection with. Common, self-righteous, argument would be, "but the kids have families who care for them too, and they have lives ahead of them!" Yeah, well, I don't know those people. The refute to that argument is probably, "but what if someone else was in your shoes and killed your 4 kids because they have no connection with them!?" Understanding the circumstances, I wouldn't hold it against the person, but rather the stronger force at work: fate. Obviously I would grieve though.

2. Well, it's a 100% chance everyone dies because of me vs a 50% chance they die anyways, along with more people, because of someone else. I choose the 50% chance. At least then I know I wasn't the one who killed everyone, and don't have to carry that on my shoulders.....for those 10 last seconds of my life. Even if more people end up dying, I wouldn't feel I made the "wrong" decision.

3. I don't have a 12 year old daughter. But let's suppose I replace her with, say, my 7 year old nephew--I would not torture him for the same reasons stated in #1. However, suppose I have to torture a random 12 year old girl I have never seen before and has no relation at all to me. I would. Edit: on second thought, maybe not. Logical choice would be to torture, but I don't think I have it in me. One of those situations I'd actually have to find myself in to see how I'd react. This one is tough.

As much as this makes me sound like a coldhearted sociopath, none of these choices are difficult for me, tbh. I'm selfish. I can admit that.

 

[LemyAddum]

Toot tooooot, etc

 

[Zoidberg747]

1. I would run over my brother. I never really liked or cared for him. Logical choice is to save the 4 kids. Replace brother with sister, and I'd choose to save her over the kids. This is someone I'm directly affiliated with, have a connection with, love, and has a family of her own that I also have a connection with. Common, self-righteous, argument would be, "but the kids have families who care for them too, and they have lives ahead of them!" Yeah, well, I don't know those people. The refute to that argument is probably, "but what if someone else was in your shoes and killed your 4 kids because they have no connection with them!?" Understanding the circumstances, I wouldn't hold it against the person, but rather the stronger force at work: fate. Obviously I would grieve though.

2. Well, it's a 100% chance everyone dies because of me vs a 50% chance they die anyways, along with more people, because of someone else. I choose the 50% chance. At least then I know I wasn't the one who killed everyone, and don't have to carry that on my shoulders.....for those 10 last seconds of my life. Even if more people end up dying, I wouldn't feel I made the "wrong" decision.

3. I don't have a 12 year old daughter. But let's suppose I replace her with, say, my 7 year old nephew--I would not torture him for the same reasons stated in #1. However, suppose I have to torture a random 12 year old girl I have never seen before and has no relation at all to me. I would. Edit: on second thought, maybe not. Logical choice would be to torture, but I don't think I have it in me. One of those situations I'd actually have to find myself in to see how I'd react. This one is tough.

As much as this makes me sound like a coldhearted sociopath, none of these choices are difficult for me, tbh. I'm selfish. I can admit that.

I highly doubt most would actually be able to torture a 12 year old girl, daughter or not. Especially for days on end.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

Yep. Here we go.

The last resort of someone who knows they're wrong. Say you weren't even being serious, ignore all the points they made, and pray nobody notices what a massive tool you are.

You're such a cool guy, braaah

To clarify, I am making "the wrong choice" fully aware of what is logically right (the option of saving more lives). I was never trying to argue that saving the people we love is the better option or the right choice. I know it's not morally optimal but it doesn't matter. It's what I would do I feel regardless of what my head tells me. And I couldn't care less what some random TYM member thinks lol. People who know me know if I'm really a bad guy or not.

You also keep trying to say I'm selfish like it's some kind of insult or a wrong thing to be selfish. When I already admitted it was a selfish choice and said it's just human nature. You are selfish too. Why do you really want to do what is right at all times and at any cost? Maybe because you really want to go to heaven. Maybe because you want others to see you and remember you as a good person, a saint, a hero who always did the right thing. Maybe not being considered selfish is so important to you that you're willing to commit cold blooded murder to prove your supposedly selflessness and righteousness. Humans help others because they want to be loved or just want to see a smile or get a "thank you" in return. Being completely selfless is impossible because subconsciously you just want to feel better and feel good about yourself.

On the other hand, I couldn't care less. I'm not trying to be a saint and I don't automatically pick option A because society thinks it's what I should do.

What makes us human? Having a conscience, having emotions, being free to choose, being imperfect..

If you always ignore your heart and your emotions when it comes to making difficult decisions and moral dilemmas, then you are doing what is right for the sake of doing what is right. But then that's not really a choice is it. We could perfectly replace you with a google robot programmed to do the right thing and he would pick the exact same options you would every time. Because moral is based on calculations and logic. Actually, the robots would probably exterminate the human race based on the same moral formula.

If you actually believed in always doing the right thing when you are in control of the situation, you wouldn't be here right now. You would be in Africa, Syria or Gaza saving lives. Nothing is stopping you to go, you just decided it's not really your problem and you'll let others handle it. Or you would be protesting in the streets about income inequality. But you wouldn't protest very hard because breaking the law isn't very moral -Even though we wouldn't be living so well if our ancestors didn't break the law and always did what was right. I also hope you're aware the United States of America would not even exist if Europeans did the right thing. And the very capitalism that allows you to live like a free individual while children are being exploited and murdered wouldn't exist if humans did the right thing.

The truth is you don't really want others to always do the right thing. You want them to do whatever is in your or your nation's best interest. And every nation thinks the same. There is no greater good of mankind here, only hypocrisy and indirect selfishness. You want to do the right thing because you want to believe that you are different, that you are better. But regardless of all those right choices you make, you will still live a happy life in a land of freedom because of the wrong/immoral choices that others made for you.

Life isn't black and white. You are not a robot and you have the power to choose with your head and your heart. Personally, I will always do what is right except when loved ones are involved. Then I know my emotions would definitely cloud my judgement. I know I would be doing the wrong thing but I also know I would be able to live with that choice because I would feel it was right. Even if my conscience would haunt me either way.

 

[Shadow985]

Holy shit, I get it. You're selfish. How many times are you going to repeat the same shtick?

"The people obsessed with the idea of always doing what is right are no less selfish than I am. You just don't realize it."

Vulcan Hades knows all. He is not just spouting simplistic opinions based on no evidence, his own projection, and blanket statements whatsoever.

Actually, I get where he's coming from on this. He's saying people that try to constantly do "what's right" (totally subjective in most cases) no matter who it harms in an attempt to make themselves feel better about the situation (which is why most people would choose to hit their brother. "At least his death wasn't in vein" type thing) are no better than those who would choose to hit the kids instead, myself included. I wouldn't be able to put my mother though the grief of knowing I killed her other son. Plus the VERY high chance I'd probably die of a drug overdose somewhere causing her to lose both of her sons? Yeah, I'm fucking selfish. Four kids aren't worth it.

"You're basically saying we have to consider logic and reason over our emotions and passion."
Uh...yes. I am. The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm sorry, Vulcan Hades.

I kinda agree with you both here. Logic and reason should be balanced with emotion and passion, or else you'd have a robot with no feelings or an overly impulsive asshole basically.

"Read the thread, there are plenty of people who would hit the 4 kids and save their brother and daughter. So I'm not the only one."
Following this logic, most popular = always right. I guess Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, he had so many supporters, after all.

Total straw man. That's not what he meant at all. He's saying you're focused on arguing with him while there are others that share his position. This wasn't an appeal to popularity.

"This argument is pointless and you shouldn't be attacking and insulting people who don't share your sentiments"
Ok, Vulcan Hades. I'm sorry I called you selfish and docuhey. Even though it's the truth and you, yourself, admitted it. But ok.

He's right. The personal attacks on both sides are unnecessary. You calling him a douche or him calling you a drama queen has nothing to do with the "discussion."

Expand the quote, my thoughts are in red.

Also, since this is a thread of totally farfetched hypotheticals, I'm gonna give you one...

Let's say you and your family are having Christmas dinner (not just immediate family either, cousins and grandmothers too, that type of dinner) and you get a call from a random, yet vaguely familiar number. You step outside to answer it because you think it's a job calling you back and some guy tells you that there's a bomb in that house. He also says there's a bomb attached to a house with a similar sized family inside some 200 miles away. He tells you that he's watching you and if you attempt to warn anyone or hang up, he'll blow both houses up. The guy then says it's up to you to choose who lives. You have 30 seconds to pick one. After 30 seconds, both houses get blown up.

He reads you the names and ages of everyone in the other house. You know none of them. Not even the last names are close to anyone you know. Let's assume the person ratio in both houses is 1:1 with everyone in similar age ranges. Let's also assume he keeps his word and only blows up the house you choose.

Would you really choose most of your family over some random people just to say you did? That's what he's getting at by saying overly righteous people are no less selfish than those that would choose their family.

 

[The Great One]

Expand the quote, my thoughts are in red.

Also, since this is a thread of totally farfetched hypotheticals, I'm gonna give you one...

Let's say you and your family are having Christmas dinner (not just immediate family either, cousins and grandmothers too, that type of dinner) and you get a call from a random, yet vaguely familiar number. You step outside to answer it because you think it's a job calling you back and some guy tells you that there's a bomb in that house. He also says there's a bomb attached to a house with a similar sized family inside some 200 miles away. He tells you that he's watching you and if you attempt to warn anyone or hang up, he'll blow both houses up. The guy then says it's up to you to choose who lives. You have 30 seconds to pick one. After 30 seconds, both houses get blown up.

He reads you the names and ages of everyone in the other house. You know none of them. Not even the last names are close to anyone you know. Let's assume the person ratio in both houses is 1:1 with everyone in similar age ranges. Let's also assume he keeps his word and only blows up the house you choose.

Would you really choose most of your family over some random people just to say you did? That's what he's getting at by saying overly righteous people are no less selfish than those that would choose their family.

Shades of the dark knight

 

[rev0lver]

Expand the quote, my thoughts are in red.

Also, since this is a thread of totally farfetched hypotheticals, I'm gonna give you one...

Let's say you and your family are having Christmas dinner (not just immediate family either, cousins and grandmothers too, that type of dinner) and you get a call from a random, yet vaguely familiar number. You step outside to answer it because you think it's a job calling you back and some guy tells you that there's a bomb in that house. He also says there's a bomb attached to a house with a similar sized family inside some 200 miles away. He tells you that he's watching you and if you attempt to warn anyone or hang up, he'll blow both houses up. The guy then says it's up to you to choose who lives. You have 30 seconds to pick one. After 30 seconds, both houses get blown up.

He reads you the names and ages of everyone in the other house. You know none of them. Not even the last names are close to anyone you know. Let's assume the person ratio in both houses is 1:1 with everyone in similar age ranges. Let's also assume he keeps his word and only blows up the house you choose.

Would you really choose most of your family over some random people just to say you did? That's what he's getting at by saying overly righteous people are no less selfish than those that would choose their family.

That's basically the Dark Knight scenario (not exactly, but similar concept). You might choose yourselves over them, but could you really bring yourself to kill them?

 

[Shadow985]

That's basically the Dark Knight scenario (not exactly, but similar concept). You might choose yourselves over them, but could you really bring yourself to kill them?

Shades of the dark knight

Really? I never saw it lol.

 

[Shaazzyam]

Expand the quote, my thoughts are in red.

Also, since this is a thread of totally farfetched hypotheticals, I'm gonna give you one...

Let's say you and your family are having Christmas dinner (not just immediate family either, cousins and grandmothers too, that type of dinner) and you get a call from a random, yet vaguely familiar number. You step outside to answer it because you think it's a job calling you back and some guy tells you that there's a bomb in that house. He also says there's a bomb attached to a house with a similar sized family inside some 200 miles away. He tells you that he's watching you and if you attempt to warn anyone or hang up, he'll blow both houses up. The guy then says it's up to you to choose who lives. You have 30 seconds to pick one. After 30 seconds, both houses get blown up.

He reads you the names and ages of everyone in the other house. You know none of them. Not even the last names are close to anyone you know. Let's assume the person ratio in both houses is 1:1 with everyone in similar age ranges. Let's also assume he keeps his word and only blows up the house you choose.

Would you really choose most of your family over some random people just to say you did? That's what he's getting at by saying overly righteous people are no less selfish than those that would choose their family.

I'm on my phone so I'll try to keep it short:

This "self-righteous" arguement is weak. Logically, the right choice will always be the many over the few. If you want to play the "what if" game with people's intentions I can easliy say things like:

What if you choose your family over the strangers because you want as many people to die as possible?

See, I can make up nonsense too.

Answer me this. How many deaths are acceptable to you before you choose the strangers over your family? Where do you draw the line? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?And what's the scale you judge human value on?

 

[Shaazzyam]

I feel like you guys are having trouble grasping the statement: "The needs of the many outweigh those of the few."

It really boils down to the definition of "need". Saving lives is a need. A majority wanted to discriminate against a minority is only a "want" which should be resisted at all costs. In that type of situation the desires of the many surely do not outweigh the desires of the few. By the same token, the few most definitely do not outweigh the many. However you want to spin it, it's just objectively wrong to choose your family in this hypothetical.

 

[Shadow985]

I'm on my phone so I'll try to keep it short:

This "self-righteous" arguement is weak. Logically, the right choice will always be the many over the few. If you want to play the "what if" game with people's intentions I can easliy say things like:

What if you choose your family over the strangers because you want as many people to die as possible?

See, I can make up nonsense too.

Answer me this. How many deaths are acceptable to you before you choose the strangers over your family? Where do you draw the line? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?And what's the scale you judge human value on?

My intentions aren't to kill as many as possible, just to save those close to me. I already said in a situation like that I'm being selfish. As far as a number, I couldn't say, but it'd have to be a pretty damn high number. I think I'd be able to live with 1000 deaths on my hands knowing my family would be there for me easier than killing my family and having 1000 "thanks, sucks about your family, bro." Judge my entire character on a hypothetical if you'd like, I just hope you're not in that 1000 if my family's on the line. I'd have no reason to live without them. Guess that'd make me a selfish douche right? I think I can live with that too.

I'm assuming you'd blow your own house up? Why? I told you the reasoning behind my choice. Tell me yours, and don't give me that it's the right thing to do/ it's only logical cop out. Why do you truly believe in both your heart and mind (because both should be conflicted in a situation like this) that killing your own family over those people that won't even know what you did for them is the right thing? So you can be a hero? So you can feel so warm and fuzzy about that family making it to 2015? Just because? I'm genuinely curious about why. Or did you really choose to save your family but you wanna save this moral high ground thing you've got going now? Who knows.

I feel like you guys are having trouble grasping the statement: "The needs of the many outweigh those of the few."

It really boils down to the definition of "need". Saving lives is a need. A majority wanted to discriminate against a minority is only a "want" which should be resisted at all costs. In that type of situation the desires of the many surely do not outweigh the desires of the few. By the same token, the few most definitely do not outweigh the many. However you want to spin it, it's just objectively wrong to choose your family in this hypothetical.

I'm not arguing if my choice is the right or wrong thing because that's subjective. What's right for me is obviously wrong for others. Just like the whites thought it was right to treat blacks the way they did even though blacks thought it was wrong. I'm arguing that the reasoning for either choice can have the same level of selfish thought behind it. I never once said that one was the right or wrong thing to do. I just said "this is what I would do. What would you do?"

This quote in particular is hypocritical. You say the needs of the many outweigh the few and that at the same time, the few outweigh the many. At that point, the truly logical would let both houses go boom because neither would have anymore value than the other and choosing either or would come down to want to save (which you said has no place in a situation like this) so the only logical choice would be to let both families die.

That's idiotic. Both families die because of your attachment to do what's "right" in your eyes. In case you forgot, there are the same number of people around the same ages in both houses, so there is no many or few. Just innocent people you let die for your own, selfish reasons. Again, back to what I said before, in these situations, you'd be just as selfish as Vulcan or I.

As far as OP's post, would you torture your 12 year old daughter for days on end to cure all the disease in the world?

 

[Kzaoo]

Morality is subjective.

 

[Shaazzyam]

My intentions aren't to kill as many as possible, just to save those close to me. I already said in a situation like that I'm being selfish. As far as a number, I couldn't say, but it'd have to be a pretty damn high number. I think I'd be able to live with 1000 deaths on my hands knowing my family would be there for me easier than killing my family and having 1000 "thanks, sucks about your family, bro." Judge my entire character on a hypothetical if you'd like, I just hope you're not in that 1000 if my family's on the line. I'd have no reason to live without them. Guess that'd make me a selfish douche right? I think I can live with that too.

I'm assuming you'd blow your own house up? Why? I told you the reasoning behind my choice. Tell me yours, and don't give me that it's the right thing to do/ it's only logical cop out. Why do you truly believe in both your heart and mind (because both should be conflicted in a situation like this) that killing your own family over those people that won't even know what you did for them is the right thing? So you can be a hero? So you can feel so warm and fuzzy about that family making it to 2015? Just because? I'm genuinely curious about why. Or did you really choose to save your family but you wanna save this moral high ground thing you've got going now? Who knows.



I'm not arguing if my choice is the right or wrong thing because that's subjective. What's right for me is obviously wrong for others. Just like the whites thought it was right to treat blacks the way they did even though blacks thought it was wrong. I'm arguing that the reasoning for either choice can have the same level of selfish thought behind it. I never once said that one was the right or wrong thing to do. I just said "this is what I would do. What would you do?"

This quote in particular is hypocritical. You say the needs of the many outweigh the few and that at the same time, the few outweigh the many. At that point, the truly logical would let both houses go boom because neither would have anymore value than the other and choosing either or would come down to want to save (which you said has no place in a situation like this) so the only logical choice would be to let both families die.

That's idiotic. Both families die because of your attachment to do what's "right" in your eyes. In case you forgot, there are the same number of people around the same ages in both houses, so there is no many or few. Just innocent people you let die for your own, selfish reasons. Again, back to what I said before, in these situations, you'd be just as selfish as Vulcan or I.

As far as OP's post, would you torture your 12 year old daughter for days on end to cure all the disease in the world?

"I'd have no reason to live without them. Guess that'd make me a selfish douche right? I think I can live with that too."

Yes, choosing your family in this hypothetical means 2 thing:

1.You have no regard for loss ofhuman life, if a situation is inconvenient for you.
2. Morally, that is a completely selfish and disgusting decision.

I'm sure you family will be waiting with open arms and smiles after you tell them 1000 innocents died for them.

As for you house scenario, there is no answer that is morally better than the other. The loss of life of is equal, and not making a decision would be the worst thing you could do. There is no objectively right answer, unlike the Fam vs 100 hypothetical. It's just preference at that point.

I'm not interested in discussing any hypotheticals then the 1 we were originally on.

 

[The Great One]

Morality is subjective.

...I mean....
You're not wrong...... but....wow

 

[Shadow985]

"I'd have no reason to live without them. Guess that'd make me a selfish douche right? I think I can live with that too."

Yes, choosing your family in this hypothetical means 2 thing:

1.You have no regard for loss ofhuman life, if a situation is inconvenient for you.
2. Morally, that is a completely selfish and disgusting decision.

I'm sure you family will be waiting with open arms and smiles after you tell them 1000 innocents died for them.

As for you house scenario, there is no answer that is morally better than the other. The loss of life of is equal, and not making a decision would be the worst thing you could do. There is no objectively right answer, unlike the Fam vs 100 hypothetical. It's just preference at that point.

I'm not interested in discussing any hypotheticals then the 1 we were originally on.

And yet again you ignore any questions directed at you.

You're just repeating what I said at this point. Yes I know my decision could be considered morally wrong depending on who's looking at it. Yes I would've spilled the blood of 1000s for my own selfish reasons. Yes, in my eyes, my family is MUCH more important than the 1000 other people that would've just as easily ended my family's lives without a second thought had they been in my shoes. And no, I actually would care about the loss of life. In that particular situation, I just care more about my family being alive than being able to say I'm a hero until my inevitable early death, be it from drugs or my own hand.

Like I said before, judge my entire character if you'd like. My family comes first flat out. If the situation called for my death or ONE of my family members, I'd take the bullet in a heartbeat. If it were me and some random guy from a crowd, I'm not taking a bullet for him when 9/10 he would have the gun turned on me. At the same time, if it were my life and only mine for those 1000 people, I'd most likely give myself for them.

Now that I'm officially the scum of TYM in your eyes, will you actually answer at least one of the many questions I asked you, or are you just gonna keep regurgitating the same "you so selfish" thing you're using to avoid coming up with an answer to anything I've asked so far?

I love how you don't want to answer if you'd torture your 12 year old daughter for days on end for the sake of all humanity. Many before the few right? What tools would you use Mr. Morality? I'm sure YOUR family would greet you with open arms and smiles after you tell them how morally right you are.

This shits not black and white. Morality is nothing but shades of grey and if one's potential recognition is worth the investment.

Don't bother replying if you're gonna keep deflecting everything I ask. I've answered everything you've asked straight up. Judge my character on that...

 

[Shaazzyam]

And yet again you ignore any questions directed at you.

You're just repeating what I said at this point. Yes I know my decision could be considered morally wrong depending on who's looking at it. Yes I would've spilled the blood of 1000s for my own selfish reasons. Yes, in my eyes, my family is MUCH more important than the 1000 other people that would've just as easily ended my family's lives without a second thought had they been in my shoes. And no, I actually would care about the loss of life. In that particular situation, I just care more about my family being alive than being able to say I'm a hero until my inevitable early death, be it from drugs or my own hand.

Like I said before, judge my entire character if you'd like. My family comes first flat out. If the situation called for my death or ONE of my family members, I'd take the bullet in a heartbeat. If it were me and some random guy from a crowd, I'm not taking a bullet for him when 9/10 he would have the gun turned on me. At the same time, if it were my life and only mine for those 1000 people, I'd most likely give myself for them.

Now that I'm officially the scum of TYM in your eyes, will you actually answer at least one of the many questions I asked you, or are you just gonna keep regurgitating the same "you so selfish" thing you're using to avoid coming up with an answer to anything I've asked so far? I love how you don't want to answer if you'd torture your 12 year old daughter for days on end for the sake of all humanity. Many before the few right? What tools would you use Mr. Morality? I'm sure YOUR family would greet you with open arms and smiles after you tell them how morally right you are.

This shits not black and white. Morality is nothing but shades of grey and if one's recognition is worth the investment.

Don't bother replying if you're gonna keep deflecting everything I ask. I've answered everything you've asked straight up. Judge my character on that...

I've said it before. I think moral dilemmas like the ones in the op are lame.

The only reason I was talking about this one is 'cause Vulcan Hades said this:"If you choose to save 100 strangers over your wife/family/kids you're a deranged psychopath who is incapable of loving/caring so you should be behind bars for being a danger to society"

...And I though it was really ironic thing to say.

 

[Shadow985]

I've said it before. I think moral dilemmas like the ones in the op are lame.

The only reason I was talking about this one is 'cause Vulcan Hades said this:"If you choose to save 100 strangers over your wife/family/kids you're a deranged psychopath who is incapable of loving/caring so you should be behind bars for being a danger to society"

...And I though it was really ironic thing to say.

The only one that really brings your morals into check is the third one. Would you do one of the most heinous things possible to that little girl if it meant curing the world of disease? It really should've been the aliens making the world into the perfect utopia but whatever.

Heh. That's pretty funny honestly. Killing the 100 would, by proxy, make you a danger to society. I don't agree with his reasoning, but I can respect his choice. Just like I can respect that you would choose the many. I have an issue with your reasoning though, which is why I think #3 is perfect for you. There's no way to reason your way out. You'd have to do it because your logic says the many before the few, period. I wouldn't do it because my logic allows more wiggle room depending on the situation. Yours doesn't. If it was punch this little girl in the face as hard as you can and we cure all disease... I'm sure she'd understand lol. But to torture her for any length of time? Nah. I'm taking her off that ship and the world will just have to deal with disease, just like we have for millions of years.

This was fun tho. I might have to start something like this next time I hang with some friends. I'd like to hear what they'd do.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

I just want to point out that almost everyone who chose to kill their brother was because they didn't love/care for their brother or even hated him IRL. But if it was their sister, their mom or their daughter, then they said they would pick the "wrong option".

I definitely think there's a line where most people would have no choice but to save the strangers over loved ones. But that line will vary greatly from person to person. And I could never judge someone for simply being human and choosing with his heart over reason. Love is everything but logical and love is stronger than everything so it's perfectly understandable why someone wouldn't be able to make the most moral choice under pressure.

I've said it before. I think moral dilemmas like the ones in the op are lame.

The only reason I was talking about this one is 'cause Vulcan Hades said this:"If you choose to save 100 strangers over your wife/family/kids you're a deranged psychopath who is incapable of loving/caring so you should be behind bars for being a danger to society"

...And I though it was really ironic thing to say.

Haha, well that's the kind of thing I say to make people react. In your case it worked a little too much and you took it really personal. So I decided to quickly delete that part of my comment because I knew it would only start flame wars.

 

[Shaazzyam]

​

The only one that really brings your morals into check is the third one. Would you do one of the most heinous things possible to that little girl if it meant curing the world of disease? It really should've been the aliens making the world into the perfect utopia but whatever.

Heh. That's pretty funny honestly. Killing the 100 would, by proxy, make you a danger to society. I don't agree with his reasoning, but I can respect his choice. Just like I can respect that you would choose the many. I have an issue with your reasoning though, which is why I think #3 is perfect for you. There's no way to reason your way out. You'd have to do it because your logic says the many before the few, period. I wouldn't do it because my logic allows more wiggle room depending on the situation. Yours doesn't. If it was punch this little girl in the face as hard as you can and we cure all disease... I'm sure she'd understand lol. But to torture her for any length of time? Nah. I'm taking her off that ship and the world will just have to deal with disease, just like we have for millions of years.

This was fun tho. I might have to start something like this next time I hang with some friends. I'd like to hear what they'd do.

Here's my answer to the 3rd one. I'm going to quote myself from earlier:

My point is, how valid are judgments made on a person's moral compass when you give cosmically impossible situations with limited choices?

 

[The Great One]

I think I'm going to remake this with realistic prompts

 

[Barrogh]

1. If I drive the train, I probably don't have access to control track switches. Besides, I have regulations to follow that in no uncertain terms tell me that I should not attempt emergency brake action or something to similar effect if I see people on track in the worst time possible, this was specifically designed to avoid endangering even more people, by the way.

1a. I'd like to see that man who can stop the train (or whatever to that effect) because he's larger than me.

Now, before you hate on me for giving irrelevant answers, I would like to point out that in this test we are supposed to assume that we are capable of estimating the situation correctly under great pressure. The problem is, though - and it's very relevant to the topic when it comes to practice - that people often aren't. I understand why examples empathize immediate choice/action - given time, you could circumvent duality of possible solutions and come up with the "third option", something OP specifically tells he's not interested in and that it's basically off-topic.
I'm no specialist ofc, but I feel that it's often not entirely correct to break down complex decision making processes into such isolated aspects like "morality", "stress resistance", "knowledge to estimate consequences" etc.