BF2S Forums Moral Sense Test

once again, in this situation, you have to choose, sorry.
topic derail: so you are telling me that you wouldn't kill one innocent child to solve the violence in the ME?

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

once again, in this situation, you have to choose, sorry.
topic derail: so you are telling me that you wouldn't kill one innocent child to solve the violence in the ME?

if the problems of the middle east can be fixed by taking the life of a single innocent child/person/kitchen sink, then those problems arent worth fixing.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-05-01 13:48:40)

4.3 .... is that good or bad? i cant think straight now... ill decide later.

rdx-fx wrote:

"You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?"

F*** it, I must be a replicant...  </grin>

tortoise? there's good eating in them!










[disclaimer] unless you read Terry Pratchett the above will mean nothing [/disclaimer]

Didn't complete as its trying to force a judgement out of false premises. The questions assume a known outcome from a woolly situation, and ignore obvious other choices.

In the first question I would suggest most 'moral' humans would say that assuming that a shark would attack and get the five if denied the easy one is a horrendous illogical justification for doing nothing. In reality the shark would attack the one person being on there own and probably be scared away from the five.

Wheres the option aim for the shark to scare it away completely?

Biased crappy pseudo-science. IMHO.

CameronPoe wrote:

I won't kill an innocent so that other innocents be saved, I wash my hands of the affair. Knocking someone off a building? That's murder.

As I (indirectly) said before -- if you have the ability, you also have the responsibility to act. You murder the man to save the children; you murder the children to save the man. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's why this is called a test, and you have choices. The choice is yours, but the choice must nevertheless be made.

As others have said - it's the same situation time and time again 1life vs 5lives.

^{I scored 4, btw}

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-05-01 16:31:34)

What a stupid idea for a test.  Its not testing morality, its testing theoretical adherence to a predefined moral code.

CameronPoe wrote:

R0lyP0ly wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I won't kill an innocent so that other innocents be saved, I wash my hands of the affair. Knocking someone off a building? That's murder.

As I (indirectly) said before -- if you have the ability, you also have the responsibility to act. You murder the man to save the children; you murder the children to save the man. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's why this is called a test, and you have choices. The choice is yours, but the choice must nevertheless be made.

What the fuck are you talking about? You aren't murdering the children. The fire is killing the children. You didn't start the fire. As I said before, I'm not killing someone to save children whose lives I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR. Being somewhere or having the ability to do something DOES NOT make you responsible or duty-bound - as you said yourself: YOU have the choice.

ok, lemme see if i can get this more clearly for you --

1.) Person A is a mortal human being.
2.) Person A is trapped in a potentially fatal situation.
3.) Thusly, Person A will either live or die, depending upon your action.
4.) You, and you alone, have the ability to prevent Person A from dying.
5.) You do not take the necessary action to ensure the safety of Person A.
6.) Person A dies.
7.) By you not utilizing your unique ability to save Person A, Person A is now dead.
8.) You killed Person A.

     A more concrete example -- Let's say, for instance, that you are a police officer in City X. Let's say you carry, at all times, a concealed weapon. Let's also presume that on any normal day, you walk to your nearby apartment. Assume that on a Wednesday as you are walking home, you glance 3 feet down an alley and see a hoodlum pointing a handgun at some faceless passerby. Let's also assume this masked marauder is the cold, calculating type, and asks you, "Sir, tell me whether or not I should kill this man; if you are silent, i will take your answer to be yes and thus fatally shoot this man."You, in a moral dilemma (no pun intended), do not answer, and continue walking home. Since you are off duty, you are fully within reason to simply ignore the activity, and continue home. If the gunman fulfills his ultimatum and kills the man, are you not at least partially at fault, since you alone had the ability to save this person's life?? Yes, I will agree that it is not you who are literally pulling the trigger, nor did you buy the gun, but would you not say you had the metaphoric gun in your hands, since it was you who, for all intensive purposes, controlled the finger on the trigger?
     By having the unique ability to save a life, you are responsible for saving the life of said victim. It is morally expected of you, and since the entire premise of our debate is heavily grounded in moral integrity, it is not unreasonable for me to make such a claim based upon moral reasoning. That is about as clear cut as I can make it, CameronPoe, so please, if you still see reason for my mistake, I would be interested to hear (see) it. Furthermore, this is the internet, and I will not lose sleep over this argument, so please, chill out with the profanity, ok? It's just a discussion.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Pubic wrote:

What a stupid idea for a test.  Its not testing morality, its testing theoretical adherence to a predefined moral code.

That is morality.

Its only one moral code though.  What if the moral test was written by NAMBLA, or had an Islamic bent to it?  I bet many peoples scores would change then.

6.1

is that bad for those few select people to be around me?

CameronPoe wrote:

R0lyP0ly wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I won't kill an innocent so that other innocents be saved, I wash my hands of the affair. Knocking someone off a building? That's murder.

As I (indirectly) said before -- if you have the ability, you also have the responsibility to act. You murder the man to save the children; you murder the children to save the man. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's why this is called a test, and you have choices. The choice is yours, but the choice must nevertheless be made.

What the fuck are you talking about? You aren't murdering the children. The fire is killing the children. You didn't start the fire. As I said before, I'm not killing someone to save children whose lives I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR. Being somewhere or having the ability to do something DOES NOT make you responsible or duty-bound - as you said yourself: YOU have the choice.

Agreed.  I think the reason why I made a 7 on this test was because I was putting myself in the situations listed.  Truly looking at it from the perspective of another person, I can easily see why he or she wouldn't kill to save others.

In reality, killing someone is usually not the only option for saving others.

Turquoise wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

R0lyP0ly wrote:

As I (indirectly) said before -- if you have the ability, you also have the responsibility to act. You murder the man to save the children; you murder the children to save the man. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's why this is called a test, and you have choices. The choice is yours, but the choice must nevertheless be made.

What the fuck are you talking about? You aren't murdering the children. The fire is killing the children. You didn't start the fire. As I said before, I'm not killing someone to save children whose lives I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR. Being somewhere or having the ability to do something DOES NOT make you responsible or duty-bound - as you said yourself: YOU have the choice.

Agreed.  I think the reason why I made a 7 on this test was because I was putting myself in the situations listed.  Truly looking at it from the perspective of another person, I can easily see why he or she wouldn't kill to save others.

In reality, killing someone is usually not the only option for saving others.

If you scored 7, then you killed 8 people.