Test your Moral Philosophy

[Hawkwings]

edit: 6.5

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I'm trying it, and am in the first block. They are constantly giving me variants of the 5:1 scenario. I'm going by utilitarianism, so I'm picking the 5 people are saved options with 2/3rds support (the last one-third I refrain from due to deontological concerns). Damn it, don't they get I'm going to make the same decision no matter how many 5:1 scenarios they give me?

Damn it, I'm in the 2nd block and they still give me these questions!!!

Fuck it, the scenarios themselves seem to be repeating...

Yes, occasionally they give a scenario other than the 5:1s, but it seems like they do so only to keep you awake....

In the end, I got a 6. Supposedly, constantly giving me 5:1 scenarios is supposed to have some meaning, but can't they vary the scenarios a bit - give me some 5 million to 1 million scenarios, or a scenario where if you save the majority, the majority doesn't get off totally scot-free or maybe the minority doesn't get killed, just inconvenienced?

[weemadando]

3.8. Lots of them were set by my trainings from lifeguarding and other first aid/medical stuff. Though some of it was a little strange.

The 5 drowning people or 1 safe one were easy. Lifeguard training that I took always told you to save the ones that weren't in trouble first, because, by the time you got to the ones that were in trouble, they would probably be dead already.

[mr friendly guy]

I got 2.7.

First thing, the situations were retarded. For example if you save one person from drowning, the shark will automatically eat 5 people (given the fact that humans are not the natural prey and that sharks won't feed when full - I find this claim dubious at best).

However since we are suppose to assume everything is correct,

my reasoning is, if its a choice between five and one - normally I would go for the five, eg 5 people drowning vs 1 person drowning.

However if the choice involves me actively harming the one to save the five, eg save 5 people from drowning but in the process drown someone who wasn't in trouble, I would side with the one. To put it simply, I don't have the right to harm another life in this circumstance.

[Duckie]

These questions are too easy- I gave up after the 1st Block because I got the same 3 over and over.

#1- Kill some people or do nothing. Do Nothing +3 Points.
#2- Actively harm someone who isn't in danger and/or is depending upon you to save 5 people. Neutral or No +1 Points.
#3- Kill 1 person who's dying to save 5 dying. Do It +2 Points.

I don't know where that would put me, but I really can't be arsed to say "Yes, Jack/Evan/James/Jill should kill a guy to save 5 more" 50 times, MIT sanctioned or not.

[Nephtys]

3.1 for me.

I chose according to this: When my direct actions save five people, but the results kill one, then that's alright. Like hitting a switch to save five people, then the railcar flies out and hits someone.

I don't vote when I kill someone to save five people. Like pushing someone in the way of the car, so that five people can get out.

[Edi]

4.9 and the test just got fucked up on me, didn't let me complete all of the sections but tossed me out early. The scenarios are mostly asinine and require little thought even with the fucked up assumptions.

Edi

[Adrian Laguna]

You people don't seem to get it. The scenarios are supposed to be stupid and illogical. The whole idea is to determine what people consider moral based on their instincts and 'gut feelings'. Also, if you make things too complicated then the subsection of the population commonly referred to as "the stupid" will also provide usefull information. Also the rules make it clear that you are supposed to accept all the scenarios as true, so bullshit such as a wake killing someone, or a single shark killing five people at the same time it really didn't bother me.

I liked how they put some scenarious in which you have the option of doing an action to save one person without negative consequences of any kind, just to keep people awake.

And I really loved at the end, they actually asked that I justify how in similar scenarios I sided towards the majority in one case and towards the the individual in the other. My answers were along the lines of "Nature taking its course and unfortunate side-effects (not stopping to save climber, glass falling on ma) is more permisible than taking an action that directly kills someone (pushing a man unto the rails)."

Almost forgot: I got a 5 on a scale of 7 (1=side with individual, 7=side with group). The result was surprising, I was expecting to be closer to 4. I also found it intriguing that the average result is dead-centered at exactly 3.5. It would appear that human population as a whole (at least in western or westernized culture anyway) is not biased on way or the other. Perhaps it is better to say that the opinions of the tested group are distributed equally to either side of the middle. I will take this as good news, seeing as I believe a lot in the balance of opinion (unlike the Stupidest Man of the Year (2005) who swears that eliminating the opposing side will actually improve everything).[/quote]

[Adrian Laguna]

Also, if you make things too complicated then the subsection of the population commonly referred to as "the stupid" will also provide useful information.

SHIT, I meant to say: ..."the stupid" will not be able to provide usefull information.

Now I feel like a member of the most rutinely mocked subset of the population...

[Winston Blake]

Stupid fucking questions. I imagined i was in the situation rather than blindly assuming the question's statements were true when most of the time there's no way i could possibly know that. So i didn't follow their inane

IF (In)action
THEN 1 death
ELSE 5 deaths
ENDIF

Some that stand out were the one where a guy is on his way out of the burning house to safety, and is between me (with helpless children) and a jammed window i want to use to escape. I have to decide whether or not to expertly swing burning debris (swing?!) and precisely knock him out the window to smash it open. Well gee, why not TAKE THE GODDAMN SAFE ROUTE HE WAS USING.

And the one with the broken neck vs the 5 divers' oxygen. What kind of idiots wouldn't realise there was some kind of mechanical malfunction and surface as soon as the oxygen cut off? Don't these visitors have any kind of supervisor with them?

I got a 2.7.

[darthdavid]

6.4 but should be higher due to misclicks.

[HemlockGrey]

Like Adrian said, you people who are complaining about the stupidity of the scenarios are idiots.



I always sided with the five people. In real life, would I be willing to actively kill someone in order to save 5 people, like some of the scenarios require? Maybe not, but I think the moral thing to do is to save the maximum number of people.

The 5 drowning people or 1 safe one were easy. Lifeguard training that I took always told you to save the ones that weren't in trouble first, because, by the time you got to the ones that were in trouble, they would probably be dead already.

That may be true in real life but the scenario requires you to assume that you can save the lives of the five people at the cost of the safe person.

[mr friendly guy]

Like Adrian said, you people who are complaining about the stupidity of the scenarios are idiots.

You mean we can't do the situation with the assumption that the information is correct and then complain afterwards that the assumptions are themselves unrealistic.

[weemadando]

The 5 drowning people or 1 safe one were easy. Lifeguard training that I took always told you to save the ones that weren't in trouble first, because, by the time you got to the ones that were in trouble, they would probably be dead already.

That may be true in real life but the scenario requires you to assume that you can save the lives of the five people at the cost of the safe person.

No - because MY moral philosophy is based off training and knowledge. And also, another part of the training - try to rescue one at a time - because you can get into a LOT of trouble if there is a group of people all of whom might be grabbing at you.

Anyhow - I based my choices off the scenarios I was given. When given the choice between 5 people in difficulty drowning and 1 person not in difficulty drowning - I chose the 1, simply because that was the response that my knowledge tells me to make in that scenario. But in the scenario with 5 in difficulty AND 1 in difficulty, I save the 5 because the scenario says that I can safely save all 5.

Your uppitiness is getting to me in this thread...

[HemlockGrey]

Your uppitiness is getting to me in this thread...

Somebody call the waaaaaambulance.

Basically you assumed information about the scenario that was not given. You assumed that the 5 drowning people would die by the time you got there when it explicitly says that you can save them. Your elite lifeguard training is irrelevant because the scenario instructs you to assume that you *can* save five people but at the cost of one. You're trying to be clever and beat the test, and it defeats the purpose.

[weemadando]

Your uppitiness is getting to me in this thread...

Somebody call the waaaaaambulance.

Basically you assumed information about the scenario that was not given. You assumed that the 5 drowning people would die by the time you got there when it explicitly says that you can save them. Your elite lifeguard training is irrelevant because the scenario instructs you to assume that you *can* save five people but at the cost of one. You're trying to be clever and beat the test, and it defeats the purpose.

Did you read my fucking post scrotum-licker? I specifically pointed out that my choices were biased WITHIN the scenarios. My choices were based on the information given to me, including the FUCKING ABSOLUTES that were built in. My background simply guided my Moral Philosopy in the CONTEXT of the scenarios you elitist twat.

[HemlockGrey]

I specifically pointed out that my choices were biased WITHIN the scenarios. My choices were based on the information given to me, including the FUCKING ABSOLUTES that were built in. My background simply guided my Moral Philosopy in the CONTEXT of the scenarios you elitist twat.

So if there is one safe person and five drowning people, and you absolutely 100% KNOW you can save the five drowning people, you would instead choose to save the one safe person? I'm not sure whether that's stupid or disgusting.

[weemadando]

No - because the scenarios in question said that I would have to KILL that one person to save the five drowning ones.

[weemadando]

And, if it makes you feel any better, I also chose the life of the 1 in all the cases where it was people on railway tracks who would be killed unless I killed someone who had (as far as I know within the scenario) taken the correct action (as opposed to those who "jay walked" the railway - again inferred).

The life of the one person who did the smart, correct thing, should not be endangered by the stupidity of the pack.

[Guardsman Bass]

4.4. I have difficulty in bringing myself to actually kill someone to save the other five, although I can be derelict in my duty if it saves five. I think that actually makes me less moral.

[HemlockGrey]

No - because the scenarios in question said that I would have to KILL that one person to save the five drowning ones.

Well that makes more sense, but you originally said that you would have saved the one person because your lifeguard training told you not to bother with the 5.

[weemadando]

Sorry - the scenarios were the same for everyone, correct? I made the assumption that you would know which I was discussing.

[General Zod]

THis test made my head hurt. The scenarios were incredibly stupid in that they offer only a very limited set of circumstances, and almost all involve a 5-1 ethic. I wound up getting 5.7. Admittedly it could have been a little bit more clear, though the options presented don't really give enough choice to reflect what someone might -actually- do in the given situation.

[NecronLord]

You people don't seem to get it. The scenarios are supposed to be stupid and illogical.

Are you claiming that there is any point whatsoever to 'a man is standing on the windowsill, there is no chance whatsoever of him surviving the drop, therefore, either knock him off, or fling some babies out of the window, who will also, therefore, plunge to their deaths' has anything remotely resembling the dilemma they're getting at? No, it's just a badly made question.

Yes, I answered the questions according to intent, the same permutation on 5 or one deaths, not according to the inane wording, but the point is, the scenarios are more badly written than ST Voyager.

[Surlethe]

5.7

It's rather obvious, I'd think: 5 > 1 .