Tweet
Some of these are my own, but most i found online, i'm curious to see how you all will answer
1. If you had to choose between one persons life and the total destruction of some great monument that is a testament to mankind's history and achievements, the Sphinx,The Pyramids( Mayan and/or Egyptian), Taj Mahal, the Colosseum, etc. You don't know the person at all, it could be an innocent child, it could be a war criminal, it could be a successful lawyer or a bum on the street, someone with their whole life ahead of them or someone who's about to have the life support plug pulled in a few minutes.
Which would you save and why? If you knew who it was would it make a difference? Even if it is a decent person, is one life out of a soon to be 7 billion population really worth more than something considered to be priceless and irreplaceable?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite. There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using the dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?
Since the fat man was leading the others out of the cave, should he be held responsible for his own predicament and volunteer to be blown to bits?
What if it were a pregnant woman leading the group that got stuck?
Would it make a difference if the fat man or the pregnant woman were not leading? Say that maybe the fat man was injured and thus the group decided he should be first to get out of dangers way, or the group decided that the soon to be mother should get out of harms way before them as she is pregnant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, the hero, Jean Valjean, is an ex-convict, living illegally under an assumed name and wanted for breaking parole. Although he will be returned to the galleys, most likely for life if he is caught. He is a good man who does not deserve to be punished however.
He has established himself in a town, becoming mayor and a public benefactor. One day, Jean learns that another man, a vagabond, has been arrested for a minor crime and identified as himself, Jean Valjean. Jean is first tempted to remain quiet, reasoning to himself that since he had nothing to do with the false identification of this hapless vagabond, he has no obligation to save him. Perhaps this man's false identification, Jean reflects, is "an act of Providence meant to save me." Upon reflection, however, Jean judges such reasoning "monstrous and hypocritical." He now feels certain that it is his duty to reveal his identity, regardless of the disastrous personal consequences.
His resolve is disturbed, however, as he reflects on the irreparable harm his return to the galleys will mean to so many people who depend upon him for their livelihood -- especially troubling in the case of a helpless woman and her small child to whom he feels a special obligation. He now reproaches himself for being too selfish, for thinking only of his own conscience and not of others. The right thing to do, he now claims to himself, is to remain quiet, to continue making money and using it to help others. The vagabond, he comforts himself, is not a worthy person, anyway. Still unconvinced and tormented by the need to decide, Jean goes to the trial and confesses.
Did Jean do the right thing?
His only crime was once stealing a loaf of bread, many years prior, during times of hardship, and then breaking his parole after release from prison. Many people depend on him. Should Jean have risked his own life and the lives of the people who depend on him for a criminal who was caught in an actual crime anyways?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why or why not? Remember the lives of hundreds or thousands, maybe even more, could be at risk
1. If you had to choose between one persons life and the total destruction of some great monument that is a testament to mankind's history and achievements, the Sphinx,The Pyramids( Mayan and/or Egyptian), Taj Mahal, the Colosseum, etc. You don't know the person at all, it could be an innocent child, it could be a war criminal, it could be a successful lawyer or a bum on the street, someone with their whole life ahead of them or someone who's about to have the life support plug pulled in a few minutes.
Which would you save and why? If you knew who it was would it make a difference? Even if it is a decent person, is one life out of a soon to be 7 billion population really worth more than something considered to be priceless and irreplaceable?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite. There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using the dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?
Since the fat man was leading the others out of the cave, should he be held responsible for his own predicament and volunteer to be blown to bits?
What if it were a pregnant woman leading the group that got stuck?
Would it make a difference if the fat man or the pregnant woman were not leading? Say that maybe the fat man was injured and thus the group decided he should be first to get out of dangers way, or the group decided that the soon to be mother should get out of harms way before them as she is pregnant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, the hero, Jean Valjean, is an ex-convict, living illegally under an assumed name and wanted for breaking parole. Although he will be returned to the galleys, most likely for life if he is caught. He is a good man who does not deserve to be punished however.
He has established himself in a town, becoming mayor and a public benefactor. One day, Jean learns that another man, a vagabond, has been arrested for a minor crime and identified as himself, Jean Valjean. Jean is first tempted to remain quiet, reasoning to himself that since he had nothing to do with the false identification of this hapless vagabond, he has no obligation to save him. Perhaps this man's false identification, Jean reflects, is "an act of Providence meant to save me." Upon reflection, however, Jean judges such reasoning "monstrous and hypocritical." He now feels certain that it is his duty to reveal his identity, regardless of the disastrous personal consequences.
His resolve is disturbed, however, as he reflects on the irreparable harm his return to the galleys will mean to so many people who depend upon him for their livelihood -- especially troubling in the case of a helpless woman and her small child to whom he feels a special obligation. He now reproaches himself for being too selfish, for thinking only of his own conscience and not of others. The right thing to do, he now claims to himself, is to remain quiet, to continue making money and using it to help others. The vagabond, he comforts himself, is not a worthy person, anyway. Still unconvinced and tormented by the need to decide, Jean goes to the trial and confesses.
Did Jean do the right thing?
His only crime was once stealing a loaf of bread, many years prior, during times of hardship, and then breaking his parole after release from prison. Many people depend on him. Should Jean have risked his own life and the lives of the people who depend on him for a criminal who was caught in an actual crime anyways?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why or why not? Remember the lives of hundreds or thousands, maybe even more, could be at risk