I will post 2 pairs of moral enquiring scenarios to see how people would respond to that. Let us understand the intricacies our moral deductions.

Best way for this to work as intended is, you answer each question before even looking at the nexr question


1. A man walks past a pond and sees a young child drowning. He can easily save the child, as the pond is shallow enough that he can stand. But he will ruin his expensive suit in doing so. If he doesn’t save the child, nobody else will, and the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to walk into the pond and save the child?


1b. A man plans to buy an expensive suit. With the money he intends to spend, he could instead save the child who lives in some distant country and is dying from malaria. Without the man's money, the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to forego buying the suit and to save the child instead?



2. You are standing at the point a train track breaks into two ways. 5 men are working on one side of the track, 1 man is working on the other side, each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.

You have the opportunity to push the track lever and direct the train to either of the sides.

Which of the sides would you rather have the traib go?


2b. You are standing on a bridge above a train track with a fat man at the point a train track. 5 men are working on the the track each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.

The fat man with you can wedge the train if pushed under the train

Would you push him or not?

Before I answer this question, I will like you to know that I believe that humans subconsciously do good things selfishly either to make other people see them as good or to clear their conscience. i will respond using my conscience as the major factor

Ia. I will save the child because the child's life obviously lies in my hand and if i WATCH him drown, then my conscience will judge me for a long time.
1b. I am not morally obligated to save the child firstly because I cant SEE the child dying and his fate lies in other peoples hand too such as the doctors who refuse to treat him unless i fore go buying my suit and other rich men planning to buy expensive ferraris

2a and b- I will do nothing in both instances and let the train take its course. This will leave me with a clear conscience knowing it's not my fault.

Do you watch "The walking dead" and "The 100" TV series?

It shows how circumstances play a role in changing morality, saving 100 by killing or sacrificing 1 person.

1.Yes,I will be morally obligated to save this child.

1b.Equally,I see any expenses spent on anything other than the barest minimum needed for survival as falling under this category,hence this obligation shouldn't exist here;but since you said only the man's money can save the child,I find myself morally obligated to help this child.

2 & 2b.I would do what saves the most people.Were I to do nothing,it would be similar to doing nothing in scenerio 1.

The answers I gave are shaped more by my beliefs,conscience and emotions-I won't be arrested for committing a crime if I choosed doing nothing in any of these scenarios.Were I were to give strictly logical views,my answers would probably be different.

tintingz:
Do you watch "The walking dead" and "The 100" TV series?

It shows how circumstances play a role in changing morality, saving 100 by killing or sacrificing 1 person.

So what are your answers?

Another subjective and objective morality misconception from johnydon22.
morality does not justify bad from good,human do.

But there are method to justify it using moral philosophy, also called the discipline of Ethics, it is a branch of philosophy that give us the values upon which we evaluate and judge actions and phenomenon for good and bad.

Even not having heard of morals and ethics, we do it. The experiments from Yale Infant Center might show us that some sort of moral code is already present quite early in our lives. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/13/living/what-babies-know-anderson-cooper-parents/index.html.

Our perception and values play a key role determining what is what regarding moral. We do have some fields of ethics, but johnydon22 enjoy this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics.

vaxx:
Another subjective and objective morality misconception from johnydon22.
morality does not justify bad from good,human do.

Wait i don't get this. Did i mention which i think is right or wrong?

It was a question to ascertain what people would do at different situations. WTF?

johnydon22:


Wait i don't get this. Did i mention which i think is right or wrong?

It was a question to ascertain what people would do at different situations. WTF?

. The answer to your question lies in between .

johnydon22:


So what are your answers?

Your question is a trolley dilemma and most people will want to apply the principle of double effect.

Interesting dilemmas.

.

spongeisback:
.

what do you think?

vaxx:
. The answer to your question lies in between .

are you answering the questions or not?

adoyi8:
Before I answer this question, I will like you to know that I believe that humans subconsciously do good things selfishly either to make other people see them as good or to clear their conscience. i will respond using my conscience as the major factor

Arguable

Ia. I will save the child because the child's life obviously lies in my hand and if i WATCH him drown, then my conscience will judge me for a long time.

There is a difference between saving the child and being morally obligated to.

Do you think you are morally obligated to?

1b. I am not morally obligated to save the child firstly because I cant SEE the child dying and his fate lies in other peoples hand too such as the doctors who refuse to treat him unless i fore go buying my suit and other rich men planning to buy expensive ferraris

ok

2a and b- I will do nothing in both instances and let the train take its course. This will leave me with a clear conscience knowing it's not my fault.

Ok, this is a hypothetical question.

for the first question, there is no middle ground, you must choose.

remember as a thought experiment, no rationality is necessary, just answer according to the options provided

tartar9:
1.Yes,I will be morally obligated to save this child.

1b.Equally,I see any expenses spent on anything other than the barest minimum needed for survival as falling under this category,hence this obligation shouldn't exist here;but since you said only the man's money can save the child,I find myself morally obligated to help this child.

ok

2 & 2b.I would do what saves the most people.Were I to do nothing,it would be similar to doing nothing in scenerio 1.

2. You'd direct the train towards the lone worker.

2b. you'd push off the fat man?

The answers I gave are shaped more by my beliefs,conscience and emotions-I won't be arrested for committing a crime if I choosed doing nothing in any of these scenarios.Were I were to give strictly logical views,my answers would probably be different.

Great

tintingz:
Your question is a trolley dilemma and most people will want to apply the principle of double effect.

And you?

1. I would save the child not cause of it being morally good but rather out of emotions.
1b. I'd buy the suit. After saving one child, what next? Does that put a dent in the tens of millions suffering the ailment?

2. The lesser of both evils. I'd flick the switch to save the 5. Look at it this way. Let's assume all men on the tracks have an average of three kids per man, if doing nothing gets them all killed then that's 18 orphans. Saving the 5 reduces that number by a great degree.
2b. No! That's murder.

No. 2 illustrated.

johnydon22:



2. You'd direct the train towards the lone worker.

2b. you'd push off the fat man?

Yes,I should direct the train towards the lone worker and push off the fat man;this shouldnt be an option-its the right thing to do.Though,in reality,I most probably wont be emotionally strong enough to do so-given the very limited time available to make such a decision
,more especially for 2b.
Many will choose saving the five in 2 but object to 2b when in actuality they are both exactly the same act-this depicts how strongly emotions directs our moralilty.Its kinda the same way,for example,a man who manufactures a poison to achieve an aim of killing a thousand people will be seen as less a monster than his accomplice who actually administers it to the targets.

What kind of a terrible person thought these scenarios? it's just wicked an unfair to make me choose. IF the time comes we'll see. Urgg

tartar9:

Yes,I should direct the train towards the lone worker and push off the fat man;this shouldnt be an option-its the right thing to do.

TF is wrong with you? How is it the right thing to do?

johnydon22:
I will post 2 pairs of moral enquiring scenarios to see how people would respond to that. Let us understand the intricacies our moral deductions.

Best way for this to work as intended is, you answer each question before even looking at the nexr question

Okay my brother.

1. A man walks past a pond and sees a young child drowning. He can easily save the child, as the pond is shallow enough that he can stand. But he will ruin his expensive suit in doing so. If he doesn’t save the child, nobody else will, and the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to walk into the pond and save the child?

Yes. Like the Good samaritan of the Bible I will save that child.

1b. A man plans to buy an expensive suit. With the money he intends to spend, he could instead save the child who lives in some distant country and is dying from malaria. Without the man's money, the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to forego buying the suit and to save the child instead?

Confusing, Ha . Ecclesiastes 1:8 says that there is a time for everything, and I am sure the man has enough time to spare after he saves the childs life. Besides, the new treatment for malaria, ACTs, cost 2-2.5 dollars for an adults dosage

2. You are standing at the point a train track breaks into two ways. 5 men are working on one side of the track, 1 man is working on the other side, each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.


You have the opportunity to push the track lever and direct the train to either of the sides.

Which of the sides would you rather have the traib go?

I would push the train track lever and direct the train to the side where one man is working, then I would run as fast as I can to move the man away bro.

2b. You are standing on a bridge above a train track with a fat man at the point a train track. 5 men are working on the the track each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.

The fat man with you can wedge the train if pushed under the train

Would you push him or not?

If I have the time to push a fat man who would offer resistance to my murder attempt, then I also have the time to do something else, so No. I would throw a rock at the five men so that they notice me, and when I point the train to them they would get out.

About the two train scenarios, after saving them, I would make a complaint with the subway company to ban the use of sound blockers on tracks still in use, and wouldn't the men feel the train vibrations as it was coming?

LucemFerre:
What kind of a terrible person thought these scenarios? it's just wicked an unfair to make me choose. IF the time comes we'll see. Urgg

read my answers brother/sister

TheConfuser:

Okay my brother.



Yes. Like the Good samaritan of the Bible I will save that child.



Confusing, Ha . Ecclesiastes 1:8 says that there is a time for everything, and I am sure the man has enough time to spare after he saves the childs life. Besides, the new treatment for malaria, ACTs, cost 2-2.5 dollars for an adults dosage


I would push the train track lever and direct the train to the side where one man is working, then I would run as fast as I can to move the man away bro.


If I have the time to push a fat man who would offer resistance to my murder attempt, then I also have the time to do something else, so No. I would throw a rock at the five men so that they notice me, and when I point the train to them they would get out.

About the two train scenarios, after saving them, I would make a complaint with the subway company to ban the use of sound blockers on tracks still in use, and wouldn't the men feel the train vibrations as it was coming?

You remind me of that my friend in primary school that sets his own questions in an exam when he can't answer the ones given.

tartar9:


You remind me of that my friend in primary school that sets his own questions in an exam when he can't answer the ones given.

Thank you my brother. Have a lovely day

What is the value of morality without spirituality? Who determines what is moral or not? Therein lies the answers to your question.

Image123:
What is the value of morality without spirituality? Who determines what is moral or not? Therein lies the answers to your question.

Morality, spirituality... What is this one saying?
At least Google the definitions first before commenting

LucemFerre:


Morality, spirituality... What is this one saying?
At least Google the definitions first before commenting

i did sir, they're not the same. i guess it is time to turn the barrel at yourself, what is this one saying?

Image123:



i did sir, they're not the same. i guess it is time to turn the barrel at yourself, what is this one saying?

Good good, if you did then you'd know spirituality has nothing to do with morality. If anything it makes one obedient, not moral. Get

1a. The man is morally obligated to save the child since he'll only lose his suit and no damage would be done to him.

1b. The man isn't morally obligated to take care of a foreign child's problems. The society should have systems in place to avoid casualties from treatable illness, you cannot save everyone.

2a. I would probably redirect the train to the side where one man is working. Although, I won't fault anyone for whatever decision he/she makes.

2b. I wouldn't push the fat man into the track. Can't really put my reason into words, but it just seems more... homicidal, maybe?

festwiz:
1. I would save the child not cause of it being morally good but rather out of emotions.
1b. I'd buy the suit. After saving one child, what next? Does that put a dent in the tens of millions suffering the ailment?

But either way you are not morally obligated to save the child. Yes?

2. The lesser of both evils. I'd flick the switch to save the 5. Look at it this way. Let's assume all men on the tracks have an average of three kids per man, if doing nothing gets them all killed then that's 18 orphans. Saving the 5 reduces that number by a great degree.
2b. No! That's murder.

2b is murder even though it achieves same aim as 2a? Isn't 2a murder since an argument can be made that you willfully murdered the lone man working on one side of the track?

LucemFerre:
What kind of a terrible person thought these scenarios? it's just wicked an unfair to make me choose. IF the time comes we'll see. Urgg

Hahaha