Searching...

Ethical Dilemmas

Created by Mr_Incognito, 4 d ago.

Post an ethical dilemma and see how others respond.

Comments

Mr_Incognito
Ethical Dilemmas
1 year member
You are abducted by Aliens and will never again return to Earth or see your family. However, the aliens give you a choice. They have technology that can create a perfect clone of you that is exactly like you in every way and has all of your memories and experiences. Nobody, including your family would ever be able to tell the difference. This clone would be sent back to Earth to be in your place. Do you clone yourself and send it to Earth or do you vanish without a trace?

@Savage @Alien_X @Noc @Sspidergwen
Last edited: 3 d ago.
show 5 replies
SSpiderGwen
Ethical Dilemmas
This is tough, I would rather die than having my children and wife see a fake father. I've always been a loyal friend. So I'd probably be courageous and tell them to kill me. Since I'm never returning to earth
Superguy251
Ethical Dilemmas
I would vanish because it's better that way rather than ny family living with a fake
UnusOf2029
Ethical Dilemmas
technically it's not a fake if it's 100% like you. Also look at it this way
A: You disappear forever & family never sees you again
B: You disappear forever & family gets some version of you.
I'd give my fam the clone
Savage
Savage 3 d
Ethical Dilemmas
I would leave the clone. There would be no difference, so it's better for my entire family. I have no idea why one wouldn't, it seems selfish to not leave the clone just because I don't like the idea of it.
Jakcj
Jakcj 3 d
Ethical Dilemmas
3 year member
Bringing down a clone for your family would just be depressing. I'd vanish.
Mr_Incognito
Ethical Dilemmas
1 year member
This might be my hardest one yet. A hot air balloon ride with three people. A man, woman, and child. The air balloon suddenly starts to lose altitude fast because there is too much weight. In order for the other two to survive, one has to jump. The man, if he survives, will end world hunger. The woman knows how to pilot the air balloon. The child is completely innocent. Who should jump?
Last edited: 3 d ago.
show 4 replies
SSpiderGwen
Ethical Dilemmas
It should be the man because of these reasons

1. The Child's weight shouldn't be a problem as he's the lowest weight on the air ballon. Throwing the child out first just means you're actually pathetic.
2. You can already infer that they are married in matrimony because they have a child in conflict. If it had to be someone it would have to be the Man. Despite the injury the man should do it.

More Notes: Now look here's how it goes in real life. When you fall in love with a Woman. The woman doesn't come to them first. The man comes to them first. Now when you think about it like that. That's one of the reasons why the man drops first. I don't know if this is a good example but it just shows you who does the action first.
AkhilPDX
Ethical Dilemmas
4 year member
I'm pretty sure the logical answer is the child but for the ethical part... ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That's hard.
UnusOf2029
Ethical Dilemmas
I assuming the speed at which they're falling is lethal so I'd pick to yeet them all
#PopulationControl
Savage
Savage 3 d
Ethical Dilemmas
For me, this is the easiest. Throw the child. The Woman is out of the question, and then it's the quicksand problem all over again. Even if the child did survive, he wouldn't be innocent anymore, since by not killing himself he cost hundreds of millions of people their lives.
Mr_Incognito
Ethical Dilemmas
1 year member
You’re in the desert and sinking in quicksand. You hear a cry for help and turn to see your best friend sinking in quicksand too. If they aren’t saved before going under, they will suffocate. Ten feet to the right of your friend is a test tube that has the cure for cancer inside of it. You only have time to save one of them and yourself. Which do you save?
show 4 replies
Superguy251
Ethical Dilemmas
I'd save the test tube guy because with this cure we could finally put an end to cancer we would save thousands of lives
Savage
Savage 3 d
Ethical Dilemmas
It is at times like these where we have no choice but to save lives. I would pick the test tube, without question.
I would also like to reference superheros, since this is after all a superhero sight. I have thought a lot about philosophy through superheros, and it's always intrigued me. What would Captain America do for instance? Would he save the test tube, knowing it would save lives? Or would he save his friend, knowing that if he didn't, he would take a life. I think Steve would go for his friend. But what about Wolverine? Unlike Steve, Logan doesn't hesitate to weigh lives. He would understand that millions if lives will always outweigh the one, and go for the test tube.
Another thing that's important to consider here is what it means to take a life. By not saving the friend, would I be killing them? In short, yes. I'm a utilitarian (type of ethical philosophy), so I see not saving the friend as killing them. But at the same time, not taking the test tube is killing millions. One may not think they're killing, since they are not the cause of death, but anytime a life could be saved and isn't, is a murder by the bystander. Which of course brings of to the amazing Spider-Man.
What would Peter Parker do? Surely he would see it as killing someone either way. He's truly a mix of wolverine's philosophies (general consequentialism), and Captain America's philosophy's (Borderline kantianism at times). So for Peter, I do not know.
This is the type of situation that makes me dislike Batman. Batman is the complete opposite of Logan, and his understanding of ethics is even more riddled with kantianism than Steve. Bruce is clearly a deontologist. He wouldn't hesitate to save the friend. He may think what he's doing is just, but in the end, Logan kills a life and saves millions, Bruce kills millions to save one person. As with most ethical questions, it boils down to consequentialism vs deontology. (in theory both Steve and Peter actually follow more Aristotle style virtue ethics, but that's just dumb if you ask me).

Side note (in case you don't know a lot about philosophy): Deontology is a type of ethical philosophy, the general opposite of consequentialism. Consequentialism believes that all actions can be justified, it will always depend on the scenario. Deontology believes that you should do the right action no matter what. Kantianism is a form of extreme deontology, named for philosopher Immanual Kant. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism that believes any action can be justified based on how it benefits the entire population's general well-being and happiness.
AkhilPDX
Ethical Dilemmas
4 year member
@Savage That's a really good way of thinking about it! The hilarious thing though is that technically, the characters you named are so fast that they could do both pretty easily.
UnusOf2029
Ethical Dilemmas
If we cured cancer the rate of death would drop, increasing global population causing congestion, lack of food/space & eventually either a Thanos style purge or a Global Civil War. I know that saving all the cancer victims sound fine but it's too much of a good thing cause nothing but pain.
Mr_Incognito
Ethical Dilemmas
1 year member
Dilemma: You have a button in front of you that when pressed, will end all illness and disease in the world permanently. However, by pressing this button, you will stop all human technological advancement beyond the date the button is pressed. Do you press the button?

@25braydens @Savage @Akhilpdx @Atemporal @Alien_X @Superguy251 @Deandinosaur6 @Tyrannus @Tigerking2020 @Pedrof @Aaronzeki @Joemama
Last edited: 4 d ago.
show 7 replies
Superguy251
Ethical Dilemmas
So we stay we all our current tech but can't improve it ummm... I think I would press the button
Savage
Savage 4 d
Ethical Dilemmas
I wouldn't press the button. It's a question of faith. Not faith in a god or in nature, but a faith in humanity. Natural illness and disease may kill millions, but it's part of a natural cycle of life.
Here, we are presented with two scenarios.
In one we defy nature without any struggle. We conquer all illness. We would live, as a society, in a state of peace, but at what cost? Human exploration is over, as is struggle, and what is life without exploration and struggle? What would it mean to be human? Overpopulation would soon become a major issue, with no end it sight. An overpopulated world where society doesn't advance is not a world I would ever want to live in. The desire to create and advance as humans and as a society is greater than any amount of lives.
In the second scenario all would continue as is. This again brings us to faith in humanity. Will we improve as a society? Will technology better us? Will society advance? These are the questions that we ponder. I have thought many times about this, and in the end I realize that no matter what the answers may be, we most hope. It is beyond question. As a people, humans most have faith, faith in themselves. If we do not believe that we will advance and improve, then we have nothing to live for.
SSpiderGwen
Ethical Dilemmas
Yes Press the button. @Mr_Incognito I have autism dude. Lol I wanna live without autism. But beside me having that illness. I would also press it because we would be immune to everything. Look @Savage it was nice knowing you but I'm better off without technology XD!!!

Honestly being immune to everything without any tech would just be good because then we would have become more educated by then. Take a look at social media platforms and video games how they affect people's mind. You know what I mean? We'd be better off without tech. I'd like to live in a world where I could just go outside everyday in my neighborhood. I never wanted to play games, use Facebook, any of that stuff. I like nature better than tech.
Tyrannus
Ethical Dilemmas
2 year member
I will not press the button. Technological advancements do far to much good to go without them. I know the question we only stop improving but actually return back to the stone age but technology means we can do practically anything. Stopping it would limit human potential to live better lives.
We'd cure diseases but lose so much more.
UnusOf2029
Ethical Dilemmas
I refer to my answer for the cancer-quicksand-friend scenario
Savage
Savage 3 d
Ethical Dilemmas
I agree with @Tyrannus
Many people take "technology" as video games and stuff, but we're really talking about all human advancement here.
SSpiderGwen
Ethical Dilemmas
@Tyrannus take a look at what Technology does to us. It impairs the ability for us to learn new things. Almost everything on the internet is unreliable. If we continue with technology we wouldn't be as educated without it. If we go back to Albert Einstein era where he invented math. We would possibly have more intelligent people like him if we discontinue with tech. Besides that look, I'd still have electricity in my house because it would be easy to invent that again if we had to start over. Why wouldn't you want to end cancer, Bipolar disorders, Autism Disorders, all that. I mean just pressing the button just means there would be less conflict in the world. We start wars with technology. If we keep on going. Take a look at the next 30 years and we have robots now. What if there was a robot revolutionary then would you forgive your choices?

Look if we keep on going with tech. I think the world is going to keep on getting negative. Pressing the button just means that we can always have a happy life without any mental illnesses, diseases, or any genetic things you're born with.