Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Try this moral game out. See how morally correct you think you are.  Regardless of score there is no right or wrong answer. Feel free to share your score if you want. 67% was my overall score. Try it out:

https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/

Edited by Crevanille
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 66% when I went through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a 62.

As it turns out one of the fields I work in is moral philosophy (or applied as bioethics), so I knew the type of these scenarios.
The game is a bit too simple but definitely interesting for people who like to get started in that kind of thing.

One of my supervisors wrote a book on how people with different moral frameworks could/should interact with each other. Imagine someone thinks you should kill 10 people to save 1, and another that you should kill 1 to save 10, how are they going to find a solution if they have to? As it turns out something that is in principle similar to this happens quite often in everyday life of societies, so we kind of need a way to figure this out.

And these scenarios in particular recently became quite important because people need to program self driving cars and, since they are engineers or tech guys, don't really know a lot about ethics, they don't really know how to program them. It's still an unanswered question which will need an answer soon though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scored me a 58. I feel like the same questions in a different order would yield me different results.

I know it's just a game/test, but those questions were quite silly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nono 
Why did you think they were silly? I'm not saying they are not, just wondering.
Questions that are more or less like this are actually stuff that people have been debating for decades now, and quite a few earn their money trying to find answers to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a 91%, now dad has to get me a new game! Wait that was ages ago...

However, I would not personally make some of the choices I see as the moral choice. Saving 10 people is better saving one, in theory. Until that one person is someone dear to you. I protect who I care about above all else~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Illusion of Terra said:

@Nono 
Why did you think they were silly? I'm not saying they are not, just wondering.
Questions that are more or less like this are actually stuff that people have been debating for decades now, and quite a few earn their money trying to find answers to them.

Uh oh, you gon' try to profile me, I'm unprofileable! You may think you have a clue, but I'm clueless😂

No but seriously, I would just like a little more context, especially if it involves offing ten thousand people, you know.

This test has a point, and yet is also pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nono Nah I was just curious of what people think who do not work in that area :). If you work long enough in a field you tend to forget what people usually think about it and why. 

But yeah, the context thing is true. Although there was a case where a captain of a ship had to decide whether to let his crew die (who he knew) or all the passengers (who he didn't know). But generally these cases are very constructed I agree.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 12:06 PM, Illusion of Terra said:

I got a 62.

As it turns out one of the fields I work in is moral philosophy (or applied as bioethics), so I knew the type of these scenarios.
The game is a bit too simple but definitely interesting for people who like to get started in that kind of thing.

One of my supervisors wrote a book on how people with different moral frameworks could/should interact with each other. Imagine someone thinks you should kill 10 people to save 1, and another that you should kill 1 to save 10, how are they going to find a solution if they have to? As it turns out something that is in principle similar to this happens quite often in everyday life of societies, so we kind of need a way to figure this out.

And these scenarios in particular recently became quite important because people need to program self driving cars and, since they are engineers or tech guys, don't really know a lot about ethics, they don't really know how to program them. It's still an unanswered question which will need an answer soon though.

I got the feeling someone was gonna say this was too simple of a game. And i was right. 

On 2/26/2019 at 11:01 PM, Nono said:

Scored me a 58. I feel like the same questions in a different order would yield me different results.

I know it's just a game/test, but those questions were quite silly.

I knew you were morally bankrupt nono. Something told me you'd score low. 😎

I kid of course. When it comes down to it, this quiz is based on what is perceived to be right. There really isn't a honest way of judging such circumstances unless your in them yourself. It's easy to say you'd sacrifice 19 or 30 to save millions. But unless we're put in such dire situations it would be hard to know. Also there were more than several areas for this quiz dealing with a score. So just because you score low in one area it's possible that your high in another. Truthfully? I say again: This test is based on what is perceived to be right.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Crevanille
I don't think the makers of the quiz cared too much about what they think is right. They say they want to measure moral parsimony, i.e. how many rules does your moral framework need to capture all those decisions. The big moral theories (deontology, utilitarianism) are quite parsimonious, that is they try to explain moral phenomena with one rule. Kinda like people in physics are trying to come up with one formula that explains physical phenomena.

Here's an example if you are interested:

If you are a utilitarian you could go by the rule "the action that maximizes happiness in most subjects is morally right" which would mean killing 1 to save 5 would generally be right. Now you get into a problem; this does seem right for many people when it comes to car accidents. BUT when it comes to "there is one healthy patient coming to a doctor which you could kill and take his organs to save 5 sick patients" most people would say that it does not seem to be right to kill him. This does seem far-fetched, but applied to self-driving cars, bad working conditions in Africa to make what we buy in the West in the stores cheap or even slavery (only a few suffering to guarantee happiness of a lot of people), this objection to utilitarianism becomes very real. So, a utilitarian has to react to it in some way. Either he makes his framework less parsimonious and says "yes the general rule (maximize happiness in most subjects) is generally valid, except in those cases" or he modifies his framework and says something like "the action according the rule that would maximize happiness in most subjects is morally right" and since most people would not accept the rule in case of slavery but would accept it in case of the car accident you might have found a way to keep your framework very parsimonious and still valid.

You are right that there probably is a huge difference between what we think now and how we would act. Who knows what I would do if I actually were in one of those situations. The only way to find out is probably by being in that situation.

But I also have to say that the aim is not necessarily to find out what you would do, but what is the moral thing to do. And that is quite important for many areas that affect every person.
For example in bioethics where you might have 100 people who need a certain organ to live but there are only 10 organs. These are very real scenarios that occur in real life and it seems difficult to figure out what the moral thing to do is. They also occur in less dramatic circumstances in everyday life (buying clothes made by children, eating higher animals, self driving cars etc), so I would say even if you don't know how you would actually act such a situation, trying to figure out what the moral thing to do is quite important.

As you can see I'm quite interested in that field, so if you or anyone wants to I'm happy to debate it in detail 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that I have a high sense of morality, but this test does not agree.

the only thing I failed to be morally objective about was when it asked if I would let my daughter die to save 10 other children.. I knew it was wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'd save my daughter first.

as far as the other questions go, it's never right to take the life of someone to save others. Unless that means we are literally ending the life of a murderer. Other than in war. 

Also doctors work by triage and do their best to judge whose life is in danger and work accordingly. They try their best, and if they aren't doing things that way, they are wrong. Such as doing more quick jobs for the money, but leaving other patients to die.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Seshi  I don't think saving your daughter is wrong :)

As far as doctors go: sometimes there is no "best" way, or there are multiple best ways. Doctors are often quite underqualified when it comes to ethical questions. That's why they have ethic committees to create simple rules (such as when it is or is not right to turn off life-prolonging machines, when exactly someone is considered dead etc.), but rules can never cover every single instance, so they are left with quite some problems on their hands they don't really know how to solve.

Also I do think it is right to take the life of someone even if they are not a murderer. For example if someone tries to kill me, I do think it is right to defend myself, and if there is no other way, kill them. But you might put that as a kind of 'war'.

And what about someone who is in constant, almost unbearable pain and wants to die but cannot end his own life? I'm not saying it is right to kill him, but there are quite a lot of people that do think so and decent arguments they put forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Illusion of Terra said:

And what about someone who is in constant, almost unbearable pain and wants to die but cannot end his own life? I'm not saying it is right to kill him, but there are quite a lot of people that do think so and decent arguments they put forth.

As long as the person is seeking death, then it's ok. But it's not right to make that decision for someone, unless they have a will and are unable to decide for themselves. 

If I am fighting in war, I would shoot to kill. If I were fighting in self defense I would follow escalation of force, shout, show, shove, shoot. But even then I'd hopefully aim to injure rather than kill. I had succeeded in the past at being compassionate towards aggressors. Sometimes people can redeem themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Seshishooting to injure, while it may sound morally right, is sadistic. I feel like if I was being attacked, I wouldn't go for the kill, I would do something to make them hate living.

 

@Illusion of Terra To be or not to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nono said:

@Seshishooting to injure, while it may sound morally right, is sadistic. I feel like if I was being attacked, I wouldn't go for the kill, I would do something to make them hate living.

 

@Illusion of Terra To be or not to be?

But Nono, you say you'd shoot to kill, but make them hate living? That's a contradiction.

Shooting to injure is a kindness. At least they can live on to make better choices in the future. There are plenty of ways to give someone a recoverable flesh wound and still stop them from attacking you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Seshi said:

But Nono, you say you'd shoot to kill, but make them hate living? That's a contradiction.

Shooting to injure is a kindness. At least they can live on to make better choices in the future. There are plenty of ways to give someone a recoverable flesh wound and still stop them from attacking you.

I don't recall saying I'd shoot to kill.

I think this topic is getting out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Seshi said:

But Nono, you say you'd shoot to kill, but make them hate living? That's a contradiction.

Shooting to injure is a kindness. At least they can live on to make better choices in the future. There are plenty of ways to give someone a recoverable flesh wound and still stop them from attacking you.

This is already borderline off topic at this point but I can't ignore it because it is dangerous thinking. I've worked with a lot of violent offenders, as well as experts on criminal thinking and correcting it. Criminal thinking is self centered and rarely rational. If someone does something that necessitates you shooting them, and they live, they will probably not make better choices in the future. The injured person will most likely go to prison for several years, and they will blame the person who shot them for it. When they get out, if given the chance, many of them would return the favor to the person who shot them, or someone close to them. Just something to consider.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nono said:

I don't recall saying I'd shoot to kill.

I think this topic is getting out of hand.

You're right, it looks like you simply made a typo. I'm glad you didn't write something like that intentionally. And I'm sorry for continuing derailing this post. Supposedly, although since we are on topic of the question of morality, it's not really off topic, just hijacked from the creator perhaps.

 

@SanguineTear On the topic of morality; everyone has the right to change their ways, not simply be put to death, otherwise the death penalty would be the only choice rather than imprisonment. Doesn't that seem to follow that logic?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Seshi If my life is in danger or my loved ones lives are in danger I don't give a damn about morality. You are of course free to think that is the proper path if you want, just saying that thinking would potentially get you, or someone you love, killed. Personally, I think it's odd valuing an aggressor's well-being over you and your loved ones', regardless of morality.

No offense if that is your line of thinking though, these things are very subjective~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SanguineTear

If you don't want to continue debating it, you don't have to read it, but here's what I think about it.

Why I think you are right

 

I think from a pragmatic perspective you might be right. You say that if you shoot someone and they live, they are likely to get back at you. I'm not sure how probable that is or not, but let's just suppose for a minute that you are right and it is probable. What would the alternative look like?
You could shoot and kill, and with that you could be certain to rule out any kind of getting back at you from that person. But, what about someone who was close to that person. Let's say you kill someone's parent, the child blames you, couldn't it also be likely that they would want to get back at you for what you did to their parent?
Here comes the thing why I think you might still be right from a pragmatic perspective. If you shoot and 'just' injure someone, the possibility of that person getting back at you AND the possibility of someone who is close to them getting back at you exist, which has to necessarily be greater than only one of the possibilities alone.

Why I think you are ultimately wrong (the second might be more convincing for you)

 

But I think you are running into two problems here. One thing is what

@Seshi mentioned. You say now that you don't care about morality (in those situations), and there is an outside chance that that might be true, but most people do care about it. I'm not talking about you actually being in that situation, I'm talking about what you or others think is the morally right thing to do in that situation. While thinking about it most people do care about morality. If you actually are in that situation it is a very different thing with lots of other factors that are important which might prohibit you (or others) to actually kill someone. Moreover, doing the morally right thing when you can, is also strongly preferred for other religious and philosophical reasons.
The second thing is, that your line of thinking completely undermines modern incarceration ideas and leads to a more undesirable outcome for everyone. There are multiple reasons why we put people in jail. One is of course to keep potential harm away from others. Another is to deter others. Lastly, and more importantly, is to show people why what they did was morally wrong. Your line of thinking undermines all of them. If you say that someone who was, according to them, wronged is likely to try and get back at you, the only viable alternatives are to either execute that person, imprison them for life, or exile them. Importantly this would not be restricted to cases where you shoot someone (or you would have to argue why it should be restricted to those cases). If someone gets into a non-lethal fight with you and you sue them, and they go to jail for a long time, they would probably also want to get back at you. So we would reasonably have to send those people to jail for life, exile or execute them. And here's the problem. If you know that if you are sued because of a fight, and what you will face is one of those three alternatives, why not kill the person and make sure he can't sue you? This would go for other crimes such as stealing as well. If killing someone has the same sentence as just beating them or stealing from them, but it is the safer option for you, why not do it?
We do think that people can better themselves and we also think that, because they know that they would face another imprisonment like the one they have already faced, they are less likely to attack you again. That is a reason to shoot to not kill.

Edited by Illusion of Terra
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Anime Forums is where fans from around the world can gather to discuss anime and Japanese culture!  All anime fans are welcome. Take a moment to join us now!
×
×
  • Create New...