Questions of Morality.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Man, I have been rereading the questions that you posed and I think I am a heartless person.

I don't fear death. My parents are getting close to checking out of this reality and besides having fun with them while they are still here, I don't dread their passing. I am kind of excited for them and the adventure they will soon experience..

I would never hasten my demise to exit this life prematurely, but I am also excited to see what comes after my time in this reality is complete.

Weird.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Not weird at all, I think many will agree with your sentiment.

As for the questions, you may be heartless but you probably aren't wrong. Funny how this morality thing works eh?

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Lately I've been trying to look at things from new and different perspectives, and one thing that kept sticking out to me was morality. What's the difference between right and good? Wrong and bad? It's extremely subjective and depending where you are, who you ask and even when you ask, you will get all different answers. The one thing that is clear is the more questions you ask the blurrier the lines become.

These questions are very important and relevant to a lot of the issues we have today. Is any single life more important than another? What if one was your family member and the other was a stranger? Are your personal needs more important than somebody else's? What if the other person's life depended on it? Are you obliged to help somebody in need of you have the means to? Does it make you wrong or bad if you don't? Would you sacrifice one life to save 10? What if the 10 were convicted felons? What if the one was terminally ill?

As you can see there isn't any right or wrong answers and it changes depending on the context. What's right isn't always good and what's wrong isn't always bad. I think what lies at the core of a lot of our differences is moral principles and I think once you start to look at it this way, it becomes a lot easier to understand and accept.

I'm not really sure the point or direction of this thread so I'll just leave it like this, but in the spirit of the thread I'll leave some tough moral dillemas for you to ponder with.

Note that these are vague hypothetical questions that only require a simple choice, no making up your own answers.

1. Your daughter and spouse are drowning. If you save your daughter first, your spouse will definitely die but if you save your spouse first, your daughter has a 50 percent chance to live. Who do you save?

2. You and your son are in a concentration camp and your son is about to be hung to his death. The gaurd told you that if you don't push your son off the ledge, not only will they still do it, but they will also take another innocent life. What do you do?

3. You are driving down the highway and notice a huge accident. You pull over to help, only to realize that it's your spouse with another person. They've been having an affair. Your spouse has a very small chance to live and if you tend to them, the other person will die and your spouse still might die. If you tend to the other person, they will be saved but your spouse will definitely die. What do you do?

4. 5 people are tied down to the tracks with an incoming train. You have the option to use a lever to make the train switch tracks, but this will lead to a stranger dying on the other track.

Bonus: Same scenario, but instead of a lever you have the option of throwing the stranger in front of the train saving the 5.

Notice how both questions have the same outcomes but the context can change your desicion?

Good luck.

1. You have to go with the odds. So, I'd say rescue your spouse first.
2. That's a rough one. I mean, morally, you can't justify committing another person to death because of the guilt you would feel for doing something that was going to be done regardless. In this scenario, your son is dead no matter what you do. Why have someone else die for a decision you make?
3. Once again, save the spouse.
4. Switch tracks.

Honestly, the second one was the most difficult for me, but....

The rest of your questions were more statistical and value judgment.

Okay Ive thought on it.

1: save my spouse cause he cant swim, but my kids can. If they were in a position where they couldnt swim, Id TRY to save them both. Thats the only hard question here I think. I love my kids with my heart, but I have a sick and twisted mutual obsession sexual codependence thing with the husband, though. Be hard to find another one of him.. but I have considered Alex Emelianenko or Mirko Cro Cop as fun replacements. I bet they can swim.. too.

2ush the son and lunge at the guard so I can be killed. Balances my soul out... or keeps me from feeling the shame and grief.

3. Watch them both die.. maybe help it along... preferably record it for future jollies. Im not joking, really. Im a fickle hedgehog and have only developed this whole forgiveness thing to a point. That crosses it.

4. Depends on my mood, in a very honest answer. Switch tracks and stranger chucked. Demand goods and money for saving their stinking lives. Save stranger if its Emelianenko or Cro cop and let the others be rail kill. Save em all and bask in the media attention while conveying my imperialistic views on the youth.

a reply to: Advantage

Interesting, interesting.. especially the cro cop part lol. You know how the story goes here, can't say you're wrong for any decisions you make

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

These are very hard question that I don't even wish on my worst enemy. Some of them I can quickly answer...like the first one. Hopefully everyone would put emphasis on their child first.

Hopefully people in a time of angst would make the decision to save as many lives as possible.

One question you can tell a lot of someone is "if you open the black box you get a million dollars, but someone random will die."

And my answer to this one changed after having a child..."would you sacrifice your life for your child to not be deaf & blind".

Anyways, these are all questions to ponder, but NO, no ones person life has more value than the other.

a reply to: veracity

That black box is a really good question and really tough to answer. I would imagine a lot of people would open that box. I can't even say definitively that I wouldn't.

originally posted by: veracity


Anyways, these are all questions to ponder, but NO, no ones person life has more value than the other.

Yes, there are definitely lives that are much more valuable than others. I learned that hard lesson when I was very young... TRIAGE. Yes some are more valuable in other areas.. battle. Id save a soldier over a cook any day of the week. My family is much more valuable than yours. If my husband came home and said he had a body in the trunk, Id help him dispose of it. If yours did, Id call the cops.. maybe shoot him. Im much more valuable than other lives due to my skill set. In a survival situation I would be chosen over others, hence, my life is more valuable because I can keep more alive. I can also make decisions others cant make and can live very comfortably with the decisions I make. I am an asset, others are not. Id save a child over an infirm elderly person. If I were an infirm elderly person, Id give my life to save a child or someone who is more worth life than I. These are things I truly believe and some I have done, no joking in this post.
See where Im going here??


**here goes my whole morality thing down the toilet... **

a reply to: Advantage

It's hard to disagree with anything you said.

Your morality is still intact.

What an interesting topic.

originally posted by: Advantage

originally posted by: veracity


Anyways, these are all questions to ponder, but NO, no ones person life has more value than the other.

Yes, there are definitely lives that are much more valuable than others. I learned that hard lesson when I was very young... TRIAGE. Yes some are more valuable in other areas.. battle. Id save a soldier over a cook any day of the week. My family is much more valuable than yours. If my husband came home and said he had a body in the trunk, Id help him dispose of it. If yours did, Id call the cops.. maybe shoot him. Im much more valuable than other lives due to my skill set. In a survival situation I would be chosen over others, hence, my life is more valuable because I can keep more alive. I can also make decisions others cant make and can live very comfortably with the decisions I make. I am an asset, others are not. Id save a child over an infirm elderly person. If I were an infirm elderly person, Id give my life to save a child or someone who is more worth life than I. These are things I truly believe and some I have done, no joking in this post.
See where Im going here??


**here goes my whole morality thing down the toilet... **

Value to yourself is different than value "in gods eyes" so to say. I'm not a Christian but tend to agree with a lot of morals,

Anyways, of course I would choose my own child over yours and I expect you to do the same. I don't like these hard questions to be in the same OP as talking about the equal value of people. It can be easily confusing.

Our personal instinct cannot be compared to the value of life...in which all is equal (except evil doesn't get to be thrown in that mix)

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Well, bc money is less more important than any life, I choose not to open, but I get the lapse in judgement of those who would open the box.

And yes, it would be hard but sometimes you have to think what is right over personal gain. Even if trump were the random to be killed...my dumb ass would still not open it (sorry to bring politics in a non-political thread.

originally posted by: Abysha


Without detailed examples of the injuries, it's difficult to tell what "slim chance" is. But if my spouse had a branch through her skull and her head was on backwards while her partner had a realistically treatable wound? I'd save her partner, of course. Obviously, the person must be a decent human if she's sleeping with them.

No judgement's can be made as each person lives by their own morals which

are subjective.

However the one issue I have is with you calling two cheaters, deceivers and

liars *decent* human beings.

There is no decency in their behaviour ...... Karma got them though!

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Abysha


Without detailed examples of the injuries, it's difficult to tell what "slim chance" is. But if my spouse had a branch through her skull and her head was on backwards while her partner had a realistically treatable wound? I'd save her partner, of course. Obviously, the person must be a decent human if she's sleeping with them.

No judgement's can be made as each person lives by their own morals which

are subjective.

However the one issue I have is with you calling two cheaters, deceivers and

liars *decent* human beings.

There is no decency in their behaviour ...... Karma got them though!

It's a matter of perspective and that does make it "subjective", you are correct. For example, from my perspective, my spouse's partners are very important to me and mine are to her. We are polyamorous. I'm sure that question was created with monogamy in mine but not everybody fits that relationship style.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Your questions DEMAND answers which you deny the legitimacy of.

For example, your concentration camp question. The answer is, you kill as many guards as you can before you yourself are killed. You let your son see it happen, so that he knows you fought for him with your last breath, that you were prepared to tear mens souls from their bodies by the dozen, just to save his little life, so that if he does meet his end, he does not do so with unresolved questions about your love for him or determination to protect him.

Accepting binary choices, where third options always exist, is not a sensible thing to do, and nor is posing such questions.

a reply to: TrueBrit

just to inject some realism - the sorts of people that put people in a " predicament " of " kill your own son or we will ............." will be prepared an expecting you to attempt a " feat of daring heroism " - and you will die in a hail of gunfire as soon as you do ANYTHING other than push your son off the edge

but i agree with your denouncement of invalid binaries

a reply to: ignorant_ape

In that circumstance, no one has permission to call themselves a parent, if they would do anything other than attempt to kill the oppressor, so the fact that the option is not there, simply invalidates the question.

the way " test one " is worded - i am amazed that anyone responds with any other descision than spouse first

for test 2 - pragmatism SHOULD tell you that pushing your son off the ledge is not going to increase the life expectancy of the " innocent 3rd party " by very much

i cannot be arsed with test 3

test 4 // 5 - unless you can make a valid assesment of the " worth " of both " victim sets " in your mind - then kill one to save 5

to explain the above

if i could identify the 5 as hitler , goebells , bormsan , himmler and goering and the one - as einstein - then cheer as the train runs over 5 nazis

a reply to: TrueBrit

appolopgies - my reply was horrendously worded -

no i would not push the kid

i was just pointing out that you would die heroicly

but no thing you did would save you son or the " other "

a reply to: TrueBrit

The questions were just a bonus piece and not meant to be taken seriously. That's why I added the insensible prerequisite prior to the questions. I just wanted to evoke some type of emotion, from the answers or otherwise, which I think I accomplished. Thanks for your response

a reply to: ignorant_ape

i am amazed that anyone responds with any other descision than spouse first 

The amazing part is morality is so subjective and you wouldn't be wrong to choose your daughter first.