Moral Dilemmas (What would you do?)

[Sage Leviathan]

If I may go off topic momentarily, I'd say that a limitation on choices does not necessarily prohibit or inhibit creativity. Do not succumb to functional fixedness so easily. The linearity of our decisions can and should be questioned.

 

[Shaazzyam]

If I may go off topic momentarily, I'd say that a limitation on choices does not necessarily prohibit or inhibit creativity. Do not succumb to functional fixedness so easily. The linearity of our decisions can and should be questioned.

The OP's premise implies there are only two choices. No room for creativity.


Sooo, in that case...

You deal this way directly with concepts, of conflict especially. Take, die, avoid, etc. and, as it were with a moral paradox, set them against what you subjectively find appropriate and love.

Choices are limited to force a weighing of options, a weighing that occurs in everyday life. Of course there are an infinite number of actions we could take to solve a problem, but we tell ourselves often that "we can only do it this way or that."

....Life isn't black and white. These situations would almost never happen, the premise is flawed, and so whatever judgments made are not valid.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

What I would do is whatever makes me and the ones I care about survive.

If it's a real 50/50 moral dilemma it means there can't be a wrong decision. Both options are perfectly acceptable and equally moral or wrong. Both have good and bad consequences. You can do all the math you want and pick the most optimal/moral option. But doing "the right thing" just for the sake of doing the right thing kind of bugs me. Do what you feel is right.

 

[Juggs]

Also before anyone actually believes this psychoanalysis bull**** keep in mind these scenarios are all but worthless because A. They are illogical/would never happen and B. You would never actually know how you would react unless put in that situation, because your adrenaline levels would be raised and you would not be thinking with a clear head.

I usually never respond to hypotheticals, for mainly this reason. Even if you believe with everything in your being you'd do something a certain way, if the scenario actually did arise, in the moment you could react completely different than what you'd expect. Also, hypotheticals aren't a good measure of much, because you could answer any way you'd like, whether it's the truth for you or not.

The only time I do answer is out of boredom, but don't take them a bit seriously, just silly fun. I usually propose them with friends while drinking or something, best time for random ass hypothetical... and really weird ones at that.

 

[Shaazzyam]

lol this is kids stuff. The right thing to do is whatever makes you and the ones you care about survive.

The number of people you save from certain death doesn't or shouldn't matter in any way. 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.

You have that backwards.

 

[Sage Leviathan]

The OP's premise implies there are only two choices. No room for creativity.


Sooo, in that case...



....Life isn't black and white. These situations would almost never happen, the premise is flawed, and so whatever judgments made are not valid.

The bit about creativity was slightly off topic as I admitted, but it remains my belief about the matter. And I agree completely that life isn't black and white. Sadly, we don't always control what happens to us :/ context is amorphous and sometimes hard to manage.

Moral dilemmas aren't to be taken literally, but the emotions they whirl about in your mind are to be taken so.

I would say that judgment validity is based on its consistency with reality, or at least the reality that the events in question are occurring in. How does one view a reality? A question of subjectivity, I'd say.

 

[The Great One]

lol this is kids stuff. The right thing to do is whatever makes you and the ones you care about survive.

The number of people you save from certain death doesn't or shouldn't matter in any way. 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.

So fuck Spock for sacrificing himself while saying, "the life of many outweigh the life of one"

 

[Sage Leviathan]

As someone who loves philosophy and loves talking about it, I get genuinely annoyed with people when they say things like "this is useless" in an objective manner.

The premises of hypotheticals can be silly. Get fucking over it and stop taking things so literally.

 

[Vulcan Hades]

You have that backwards.

Thousands of people get murdered or commit suicide every day but the fact that you don't know them personally means you're gonna care less than if it was people you knew and loved. That's just how humans work. There is simply no dilemma to me if it's X strangers vs X people you know/care about.

Of course you feel bad when you learn all these innocent strangers are getting killed on TV due to war etc. But you are able to live with it because it's not a tragedy that is close to you and/or has a big impact on your life. LBSH You're not gonna sacrifice your child/friends to save Lebanon. You just think war sucks and people should do something about it.

Pretending that you would save complete strangers over the people you love the most is kind of hypocritical I think. We all know it ain't happening unless you don't really love or care about anyone.

 

[rev0lver]

1. I would protect the kids
1a. Even though it's obviously an impossible scenario, it would be no different. The only difference is doing it with a machine vs doing it with your own hands. You're sacrificing an innocent by manipulating the natural path. So if that was my only option and I knew it would somehow work, I would push the man.

2. I would do nothing. In a post-9/11 world, airspace (here and internationally) is tightly controlled and by the time they reached a target people on the ground would know whether it is a hostage situation or a threat, and in the latter case (nowadays) they would probably shoot down the plane if they felt it was necessary. If there's no indication of them using the plane for terrorism, we shouldn't do anything that drastic.

3. I'm a [ban incoming] fuk having kids

 

[Shaazzyam]

The bit about creativity was slightly off topic as I admitted, but it remains my belief about the matter. And I agree completely that life isn't black and white. Sadly, we don't always control what happens to us :/ context is amorphous and sometimes hard to manage.

Moral dilemmas aren't to be taken literally, but the emotions they whirl about in your mind are to be taken so.

I would say that judgment validity is based on its consistency with reality, or at least the reality that the events in question are occurring in. How does one view a reality? A question of subjectivity, I'd say.

Ok, so if we're both in agreement that Op's premise is inherently flawed, what value do the results really have? It holds no weight. Loaded questions.

Basically, it shouldn't matter. Moral dilemmas are usually so contrived anyway, there's no point outside of fun imo.

Thousands of people get murdered or commit suicide every day but the fact that you don't know them personally means you're gonna care less than if it was people you knew and loved. That's just how humans work. There is simply no dilemma if it's X strangers vs X people you know/care about.

Of course you feel bad when you learn all these innocent strangers are getting killed on TV due to war etc. But you are able to live with it because it's not a tragedy that is close to you or has a big impact on your life. LBSH You're not gonna risk your life or sacrifice your child to save Lebanon. You just think war sucks and people should do something to stop it.

A lot of people are dying from cancer in Iraq because of radiation leftovers. But we don't really do anything to help them, we already got rid of Saddam and trained their soldiers to defend themselves so whatever happens to them now isn't america's concern. But if you learn that your wife or friend has cancer then you'll do whatever is in your power to help. Again, normal.

Pretending that you would save complete strangers over the people you love the most is hypocritical. We all know it ain't happening unless you don't really love or care about anyone.

Your family has more of a right to life than strangers, simply because you love them?

 

[Sage Leviathan]

 

[The Great One]

Ok, so if we're both in agreement that Op's premise is inherently flawed, what value do the results really have? It holds no weight. Loaded questions.

Basically, it shouldn't matter. Moral dilemmas are so contrived anyway, there's no point outside of fun imo.


Your family has more of a right to life than strangers, simply because you love them?

WTF you say that this is all stupid yet you're attacking that Guy because of his answer to the op?! (Which I agree with you btw)

Fine. You should just assume this thread was for your entertainment and contribute what you have

 

[Vulcan Hades]

So fuck Spock for sacrificing himself while saying, "the life of many outweigh the life of one"

Yeah fuck him. It's the kind of sentence that only sounds true but isn't really.

"More lives are more precious than one." Ok well it depends which lives we are talking about. It's perfectly possible that one person might be more valuable to society than a thousand of heartless/useless humans. For example the one guy that could find a cure for cancer is probably more valuable than all of Texas lol.

But would you sacrifice your entire family, wife/kids and all of your friends just to save this one guy that could potentially save the world? You might say yeah because the survival of our race matters more. But is the human race as we know it really that important to save? I think saving our humanity matters more.

Ironically the end of humans might be a good thing for the survival of the planet earth you're trying to save. So by your own logic humans should have a lesser importance than nature itself or the cosmos. So maybe we should all just kill ourselves for this "greater good".

 

[Shaazzyam]

WTF you say that this is all stupid yet you're attacking that Guy because of his answer to the op?! (Which I agree with you btw)

Fine. You should just assume this thread was for your entertainment and contribute what you have

I know this thread is just for fun.


Sage seems to think I don't understand what hypothetical situations are and keeps arguing with me in a general sense about it, when I'm specifically talking about the ones in the OP.

 

[Vocket]

"More lives are more precious than one." Ok well it depends which lives we are talking about. It's perfectly possible that one person might be more valuable to society than a thousand of heartless/useless humans. For example the one guy that could find a cure for cancer is probably more valuable than all of Texas lol.

I am in Texas ;_;

 

[Vulcan Hades]

I am in Texas ;_;

LOL I just named the first state that came to mind.

 

[Shaazzyam]

Yeah fuck him. It's the kind of sentence that only sounds true but isn't really.

"More lives are more precious than one." Ok well it depends which lives we are talking about. It's perfectly possible that one person might be more valuable to society than a thousand of heartless/useless humans. For example the one guy that could find a cure for cancer is probably more valuable than all of Texas lol.

But would you sacrifice your entire family, wife/kids and all of your friends just to save this one guy that could potentially save the world? You might say yeah because the survival of our race matters more. But is the human race as we know it really that important to save? I think saving our humanity matters more.

Ironically the end of humans might be a good thing for the survival of the planet earth you're trying to save. So by your own logic humans should have a lesser importance than nature itself or the cosmos. So maybe we should all just kill ourselves for this "greater good".

You're stretching it pretty hard. Nobody knows how things turn out, you can't just assume things.


But what we do know: You'd let over 100 people you'd never met before die because you think your family deserves to live more. I get it, but that's pretty messed up.

 

[Juggs]

But what we do know: You'd let over 100 people you'd never met before die because you think your family deserves to live more. I get it, but that's pretty messed up.

For the record, I'd choose my immediate family (and even my really good friends) living over the entire population. It may be irrational, unreasonable, "messed up", or whatever, but I don't really care. That's just me though.

 

[Shaazzyam]

For the record, I'd choose my immediate family (and even my really good friends) living over the entire population. It may be irrational, unreasonable, "messed up", or whatever, but I don't really care. That's just me though.

I mean...why?

Can anyone give me a rational, objective reason why they think it's justified? Without using the word "I"?

 

[Vulcan Hades]

You're stretching it pretty hard. Nobody knows how things turn out, you can't just assume things.


But what we do know: You'd let over 100 people you'd never met before die because you think your family deserves to live more. I get it, but that's pretty messed up.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Of course everyone deserves to live equally. I never said people we love deserve to live more. I'm saying when it comes down to choosing between them you will pick the people you care more about.

I guess it's possible you might care more about complete strangers than your own wife, kids and friends. But I could also say that's pretty fucked up.

To use your own rhetoric: What we do know: You'd let your best friends that saved your life/supported you when you needed help DIE, to save some random scrubs, materialists and criminals. You would stab your wife/bros in the back to save 100 people you've never even met before because you consider their lives somehow more valuable. Again, without even knowing anything about the 100. They could be 100 rapists or serial killers and you would still choose to save them (because since they're strangers you wouldn't even know if they're good people or dirtbags).

Yes saving people you love/care about is kind of selfish. But that's human nature. If you're completely selfless you are simply not human.

 

[Juggs]

I mean...why?

Can anyone give me a rational, objective reason why they think it's justified? Without using the word "I"?

I didn't say it was justified. The perseverance of the human race means very little to me. I mean I'd love to leave this world better than when I came into it, but ultimately it won't matter, neither to me or in the grand scheme of the cosmos.

And you can't really give an objective reason on why you value certain lives over others. Because value in itself is inherently subjective. I value the life of my family and friends over all others. This axiom is true for a lot of people, because it just is. I can come up with plenty of reasons or justifications, but when it comes to value, it can only ever be subjective.

 

[Vocket]

Anyways here are my answers to the moral dilemmas.

1) Save my brother. This one is because I value the life of my brother and know him to be good (I hope) over four strangers who could be any type of person. Sorry strangers.
1a) Save the four and kill the large man by pushing him.

2) I would not poison the terrorists. For this I used statistics to justify my answer. Turns out that most terrorists attacks end in no one dead and the hijackers captured.

http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/89/html
no I am not using MLA or APA I am in vacation.

3) What type of fucked up aliens are they jeez. I don't have a daughter but if those aliens truly could solve all diseases and poverty then I would torture my daughter. I would also kill myself immediately after because I could not live having done such a terrible thing to my family. Two people for the happiness of millions of sick and poor people, it would be too cruel to let that many keep suffering.

 

[Prinz]

1. Definitely not saving the random kids. 4 kids crossing the train rail without adult supervision, nothing to feel guilty or amoral about here.
2. This one is simple. You do nothing to jeopardize the plane and the lives of people in it, you do not kill the terrorists, you do what you can - for example talk to them through the vent.
3. Lol Is this even a question?

Bring in the heavy stuff.

 

[Prinz]

How about more relateable moral dilemma's?

You see a man drop his wallet. Do you keep it or run after him?
You see a woman drop her wallet Do you keep it or run after her?

You're tempted to have sex with the person you like, they are super hot and everything you want, but they're in a relation ship? Do you get with them?
Same situation, but married. Do you get with them?

You see these really tough, gangster looking thugs racially attack a waitress at a bar. Do you intervene risking they beat you up or pull a weapon on you, or do you put your head down and do nothing?

You're asked to look over someone's laptop at a cafe while they quickly use the restroom. You see a random stranger try and take it. Do you stop him, or turn a blind eye?

idk i thought of these maybe more relatable

I will call the man, since I don't see any profit in taking his wallet. I'll call the woman and hook with her if she's ok.
Sex thing - I provoke them until I'm bored, the rest is their call.
Fit in with the gangsters, then focus their attention on something else.
If you're asked to look over his laptop and you accept, you have to do everything you can so the owner gets it back, otherwise you're an irresponsible piece of shit. You might also get beat up by its owner, so nothing to fear there