First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Moral Dilemmas
3481 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / CALIFORNIA!!!!
Offline
Posted 4/23/08 , edited 4/23/08
1. save my mom and the person i love, although why we can't all squeeze in the car is beyond me
2. I DONT HAVE A BROHER SAVE THE CHILDREN HAHA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem<--that is pretty intersting
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/23/08 , edited 4/23/08

phyro989 wrote:


mushroomjay wrote:

1. Impossible. Tornadoes require flat-land to move around and about, as well to form.

Wouldn't happen.

2. Why the fuck would I give two shits about little kids I don't know? I say, let them burn.
-- Brother.


you are a highly selfish person. if it doesn't help u, u won't do it.

Your quote:"What is in it for me?"

and i am guessing u don't now what an alley way is. they consit of extreamly flat land. I just said alley way so some smart ass won't say why don't u just run from the tornado?

How is running into a burning building to save someone selfish? If that's your reasoning, then if he had gone to save the kids he would've been a jerk who didn't love his little brother.


phyro989 wrote:

These are my anwers witht he reasons.


I will let them both live and stay to die.

reason: If i save my mother i will not be able to live with the fact i decided to let the woman i love most die.

If i save the woman i love most than she will leave me for letting my mother die such a horrible death. Then i will kill myself.

All answer lead to two people dieing. 2>1. if i die then two people will live.


I would choose to save the kids. 5 > 1. Pulse they are our future. 5 people can do more than 1 person.

1. If the woman you love the most would leave you even after you sacrificed your mother to save her life and prove your love to her, then she's a bitch who needs to be strangled.

Also, almost anyone's mother would be willing to sacrifice themselves for their children, and if the woman really loved you then she'd be willing to sacrifice herself for you, so while you're all deciding who to leave the tornado would come and kill all of you. ALSO, isn't it possible that the woman you love could kill herself after losing you?

2. Those 5 kids could grow up to be murderers and rapists or whatever, so that could be 5 more evil people that you let loose into the world. How would you live with yourself knowing that you sacrificed your brother to save the next Hitler?
8211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 4/23/08
I'll use Bankai and save everyone. Haha.

But seriously. Hm...

1. The car has a trunk right? I'll stuff my love one inside the trunk.

2. I'll call for help, save my brother first (although hes 4 years older than me so I think he would be able to save himself) then go help the children.

Or I'll just call for Superman.
2554 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 4/23/08 , edited 4/23/08

phyro989 wrote:


mushroomjay wrote:

1. Impossible. Tornadoes require flat-land to move around and about, as well to form.

Wouldn't happen.

2. Why the fuck would I give two shits about little kids I don't know? I say, let them burn.
-- Brother.


you are a highly selfish person. if it doesn't help u, u won't do it.

Your quote:"What is in it for me?"

and i am guessing u don't now what an alley way is. they consit of extreamly flat land. I just said alley way so some smart ass won't say why don't u just run from the tornado?


And you let your brother die.


No offence, but stupid thread. (OP post at least)
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 4/23/08
1.) Person I love most. This one isn't too difficult for me, given how little I actually care for my mother; however, even if I did care for her, I would love the other person more, according to your example. On top of that, I can consider how much longer each person potentially has left to live. I would not sacrifice myself since my life is quite possibly more valuable to me than anything else.

2.) Unfortunately, I have no siblings, and it is difficult for me to imagine the type of relationship I might have with one in my family. Assuming I care for him quite a bit in this example, I choose him over the five by virtue of the fact that he has meaning to me. If I do not care, I choose the children.

I'd like to add that I would possibly let the rest of the world die in place of my girlfriend. I'm normally utilitarian when judging issues for others, but that changes to some extent when I become personally involved. I don't always value the lives of others in and of themselves.
Posted 4/24/08 , edited 4/24/08
For my case, since I think I'm not too tough for saving others...

I'll just try my best to save myself first and after that
I'll hope the ones I've left behind will aslo survive ( I'm not selfish right?)
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/08
1. I'll let my mom escape and die together with my love. Reasoning? My mom still has my dad and my brother to consider. If the person I love most also loves me most then it would be stupid for either of us to escape.

2. I'll get my brother to stop slacking and help me save those kids. Or if it seems impractical I'll run away with him.

I'll ask Kohlberg's question of morality here:

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/24/08

cardmage wrote:

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?


He did the right thing I think, obviously the drug dealer was cheating people out of their money and needed to learn that his selfish deeds would come back to haunt him. Plus he should already have tons of money anyway, and he can always make more.
6598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Colorado
Offline
Posted 4/24/08
1: You are in an alleyway and a tornado is coming right at you. Your mother and person u love most in the world are with u. there is a car that can only hold two people face the opposite direction of the tornado. One person must be left behind to die. who is it?
-In reality, even if a car could fit only two inside, there's always the trunk, the roof or someone would sit on someone else's lap. And though some people might answer just one person, I'm pretty sure of myself that I would think of fitting all of us first than picking one from the other, because as you stated in the situation, you love them both to death. So leaving one to have the risk of dying isn't really called love now, isn't it?

2. Your brother is stuck in side a burning building and only u can save him, but on the other side there are 5 children who haven't reach junior high yet. You can only save one or the other. Who do you save?
-In a building, and there are six people stuck? There are firefighters, and they really do arrive ASAP in case of fires (d-uh). And I don't think I'm the only one who is capable of saving my so-called brother and these five brats. As selfish as it may seem, I'd rather not save any of them. I'll call 911/Fire Dept./Police because they ARE paid to SAVE lives. So I'll let them do their jobs. And I would not risk my own sanity and life deciding which one I should save or not. Yes, this is what a human is all about, survival.
6598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Colorado
Offline
Posted 4/24/08
'll ask Kohlberg's question of morality here:

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?



Ha ha. That's a nice way to put it. Pre-conventional, conventional and post conventional. Whether he steals it or not, he will still be hated or even looked down upon by society. The best thing to do, is to not do anything at all and just take care of her wife, love her and cherish the last days with her.
6468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/24/08
Well fuck me.....

First one i dunno either would be scared for life knowing that i sacrificed my mother/ loved on for them... Id have to say loved one though.

Second one id have to say the kids... If i were the brother in the building and my brother saved me and i knew that 5 little kids died and he could have saved them i wouldnt forgive him or myself ever....
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/08

geeene_16 wrote:

Ha ha. That's a nice way to put it. Pre-conventional, conventional and post conventional. Whether he steals it or not, he will still be hated or even looked down upon by society. The best thing to do, is to not do anything at all and just take care of her wife, love her and cherish the last days with her.


You are right in that I was asking Kohlberg's question which he used to test for stages of morality. Didn't really want to mention it until a few more people answered but well, since you mentioned it I'll say which categories I think each of you fall into (I'm not really trained to code it yet, but well, I'm trying).

You fall into the stage of conventional reasoning. You are making a comparison with societal expectations and saying that he shouldn't have done it but instead have just taken care of his wife.


Cuddlebuns wrote:

He did the right thing I think, obviously the drug dealer was cheating people out of their money and needed to learn that his selfish deeds would come back to haunt him. Plus he should already have tons of money anyway, and he can always make more.


And Cuddlebuns, you also fall into the stage of conventional reasoning. You are making a judgement call that the drug dealer was greedy and thus should be punished, which sounds a bit pre-conventional actually, but you also made the judgement of "good" or "bad", which falls into stage 2.

Kohlberg's studies found that most people reason in stage 2 for life in fact. Its considered the norm. Post-conventional reasoning is rarer to find and sometimes looks more like pre-conventional behaviour too, so stage 2 is pretty good.
3340 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 5/13/08

phyro989 wrote:

These are my anwers witht he reasons.


I will let them both live and stay to die.

reason: If i save my mother i will not be able to live with the fact i decided to let the woman i love most die.

If i save the woman i love most than she will leave me for letting my mother die such a horrible death. Then i will kill myself.

All answer lead to two people dieing. 2>1. if i die then two people will live.


I would choose to save the kids. 5 > 1. Pulse they are our future. 5 people can do more than 1 person.


Let me ask you one thing. If you die, wouldn't you be causing your loved one and your mother unbearable grief and guilt for the rest of their lives?

Let me ask you something else. If you die, how can you be certain that they will live? Second of all, what does it matter if you're dead? If you're dead you have no longer anything to do with the living. Why would you care?

Here's my answers to both the problems:

1.) This is a false dilemma. What if your mother was the person you love most in the world? Then there is no dilemma and both of you can live.

2.) You said I can save only ONE or the OTHER. This implies I can save only one person. Of course I would choose my brother. In any case if I can save only one person I would choose the one I am most attached to, since I will be the one experiencing the pain of loss.
706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Dublin, Ireland
Offline
Posted 5/14/08

mushroomjay wrote:

1. Impossible. Tornadoes require flat-land to move around and about, as well to form.

Wouldn't happen.

2. Why the fuck would I give two shits about little kids I don't know? I say, let them burn.
-- Brother.


I concur.
263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 5/14/08
1. If there was no way to stuff three people in the car: either my mother or me and my boyfriend would end up staying... Most likely my mother. I can't live without my boyfriend and he can't live without me so if one stayed the other would too... and my mother is an alcoholic, has a slight mental illness and has already lived most of her life. (and she is the kind who would others live instead.) So my mother would stay behind, but it wouldn't be my decision, I wouldn't do a decision like that on my own... And if it really was an alleyway we all would go hide in a building instead of a car. ;P

2. Depends on the kids and which of my brothers was in danger. If they were good kids I would save them, and maybe if they were bad since they are that young. Unless the one in need was my eldest brother who has a kid of his own. If it was my other brother in danger, I would save the kids since he can take care of himself and if he wouldn't be able to save himself neither would I. Though it would completely depend on the situtation. Kinda hard to say when I am sitting on my ass in a safe room and with no experiense of any fires or tornadoes. (We don't even get tornadoes here...)

3. I think that the guy could have acted differently, but I would have understood why he did it. I personally would have taken a quick loan since the drug was so cheap.

If I may ask a question too: If you could cure one illness in the world, what would it be? (Stupidity isn't an option.)
80241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 5/14/08
Hmmm the question to me would be what will happen to me. Because in the end I am the most important person in my own world, because in the end my personal version of this universe would not exist without me.

So that being said when confronted with a choice such as this I would probably just walk away and save myself. But if I had to choose I would choose to save the person that will not hurt me. In my eyes all peoples lives are equal when damage can be put to my body.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.