The term ‘Sophie's choice’ refers to a very difficult decision that has to be made. Even though we are not faced with those types of decisions every day, we all think about our actions and their consequences. However, in the next 5 minutes, this poll will reaaally make you think about those consequences in depth. Some of the questions will really stump you. The questions or as some call them ethical dilemmas have no right or wrong answers. So, feel free to take a minute to answer these tough questions, and think about the consequences! See whether the majority thinks the same way you do. 👀
This post may include affiliate links.
A trolley is going along its track, but you see that if it continues in that direction it's going to hit 5 people! When you look at the other track, you see only one person. You could pull the lever and save 5 people. Or, you may do nothing and save 1 person.
Just do as Michael suggested. Let the trolley hit the 5 people, but as you pass the the single guy on the other track you stick out a long bladed weapon so you can get a full k**l score.
Load More Replies...As none seem to be tied down, tell them all to get up and stop being silly.
If you pull the lever halfway, the trolly gets stuck at the intersection and can’t go forward.
There is an interesting way to reframe this problem, which, I think, makes clear the moral quandary this actually poses. There are five people at the hospital. Two are waiting for kidney transplants, one needs a lung transplant, one needs a liver transplant and one needs a heart transplant. Would you advocate sacrificing a healthy person to provide the organs needed to save five lives?
Pull the lever, try to get to the single person before the train, fail, feel guilty the rest of my life.
Pull the lever at the precise moment the trolley hits the switch so it derails and misses both groups.
Thereby killing all 15 people on the trolley. Optimization K**l Trophy Achieved!
Load More Replies...Pull the lever, then run quickly to attempt to save the one person in time. I have a chance to do that, but much less chance to save five people.
You are the son/daughter of a president in an advanced country. Your father and his government decide to invade a poor country. Would you remain on your father’s side even if you don’t agree with his views? Or would you establish a secret alliance with people from the invaded country even though you know your father would disown you?
Again, you 29% are the EXACT REASON we’re in this sh*t-whole of a mess right now. Wankers.
The thing is, 29% are only the people that admit they would do the wrong thing. I'd bet there's a bunch of the 71% who think think they would do the right thing but if it ever came down to it wouldn't.
Load More Replies...Ivanka would set up a slave factory to produce handbags in the invaded country.
Load More Replies...Disown? If your father is that kind of person, your choices are probably be committed to a mental institution or "disappear".
Did anyone else get annoyed by the fact that it said “father” and not “parent”?
I would first find out what dear old dad is planning with the country. If the poor country is corrupt and needs help, we might be able to fix things. If he just wants to plunder it.... I would most likely see if he is open to turning it into a wildlife preserve.
Let's bring this a little closer to home. I have wondered before, if my husband m******d someone, or abused children (something heinous), would you support them, or ditch them? I have always believed I would ditch them. Thank goodness it's never been tested.
There is a simulation machine that enables lucid dreaming. You can only experience positive things there. You can achieve all the things you have ever dreamed of. But, once you enable that simulation you can never go back to your real life again. Would you prefer the simulation or your real life?
Life is a lucid dream. What evidence do I have that I am actually a conscious being, and not simply asleep in some fabricated reality?
I almost always dream lucidly. I know I'm asleep... This one's freaking me out because I have literally just woken up from the 1st non lucid dream I've had in about 20 years!
At this stage that the world is in? Give me the simulation or an asteroid. 🥲
There's no use or sense in hiding behind comforting illusions. I lucid dream all the time anyway so I don't need the help.
If only good things can happen then there's no sense of achievement, no challenge, no purpose. That's why Kirk left the Nexus.
Since there's no way to know whether 'real life' isn't just also a simulation, I'd take the happier simulation over this current misery.
You are a scientist and you discovered the immortality pill. Would you make the pill available for everyone?
And at least you know that all of the arseholes, some with wheatbiscuit orange hair and the moral iq of a snot, will eventually die.
Load More Replies...I would destroy it, burn my notes and erase my research. A world full of immortals would be terrible. Too many of us would destroy the planet in a few years, and just an elite being immortal would become alien and inhumane. The 1% is already way too out of touch. Imagine them being immortal. Also, what kind of immortality are we talking about? Not dying but still aging would be a nightmare...
I wouldn't be researching immortality because what for. As Queen asked "who wants to live forever, when love must die?"
There ought to be a follow up to "No" that asks "Who would you give it to, then?" (With "No one" being a legitimate answer)
Let’s reframe the trolley problem. You’re on a bridge above the train tracks. On the bridge, there is a large animal. You see that the train is about to hit a person. Imagine that you’d be able to throw that animal off the bridge, to stop the train. Would you do it?
How large is the animal in question? I don't think that an animal big enough to stop a train can be thrown that easily from a bridge.
Yes, it's supposed to be a thought experiment, not a real life scenario. Same with the original, what are ll those people doing tied to the tracks and why can't you just get the trolley to stop?
Load More Replies...Because humans are higher up in the food chain. Tigers and eagles think it too... They just keep it to themselves. Tropic levels!
Load More Replies...Like hell would I k**l an animal to save a person nope just nope I prefer animals over people so the animal stays safe human can get himself outta s**t I’ve already saved 5 from this dm trolley 😂
Maybe it's time to take out the insane trolley driver?
Load More Replies...Moose don't stop trains, am I going to find a throw an animal larger than a moose?
Weird question. And no. No animals were harmed writing this comment.
1. Depends on the animal 2. Would throwing the animal on the track cause the rain to crash and possibly k**l other people on the train? How many people might die? 3. Do I know the person? It's the animal one of my pets?
Why hurt an innocent animal if someone wants to unalive themselves? Nope, not guna do it.
You are a hitman. Your mission is to k**l the bad guys you're instructed to take out. For the first time, you come across a familiar name, a person you love very much. But, they say that person is a bad guy. However, you know they wouldn’t even hurt an ant. Would you k**l them?
Especially how they censor "k**l". If you're too sensitive to read "k**l", you're too sensitive for ethical dilemmas.
Load More Replies...How much do I trust the people telling me who the bad guys are? How well do I really know the person I love? If I am 100% sure my orders are wrong about the person I love then I can't trust the other people are bad guys either.
That's a dumb question. Am I supposed to k¡ll a loved one because someone *told* me they are evil? Or are they providing evidence? Are we talking about bad guys as enemies of my country, enemies of my employers or bad people in general? And, if I were a hitman, wouldn't I be devoid of empathy to begin with? or be so ethical to decide to k¡ll my employers for suggesting it?
Why would i be a hitman anyway? I am spraying cockroaches because i can not bring myself to just hit them with a flipflop. I doubt very much i could k**l people for money.
You could be a hitman that uses poisonous spray,. (Joke)
Load More Replies...My assignment is to K I L L (it's a word, BP, stop with the censoring) 'bad guys'. My proposed target is not a bad guy. Therefore they are an invalid target.
I wouldn't even be a hitman in the first place. So if I hypothetically would be one, I probably wouldn't have a conscious
You work at your best friend’s boyfriend’s firm. They seem to have a wonderful relationship. You notice that the boyfriend is laundering money. On top of that, he cheats on your best friend. Their wedding is in 2 days. But, if you tell her everything her day will be ruined and you’d lose your job. If you don’t say anything the secret would eat you from the inside. Would you tell your best friend everything?
If I work in a money laundry business my job is likely to vanish anyway. Maybe I even go to jail with the owner.
Better option is not listed. No... but. specifically, you don't tell the friend, but you DO tell the authorities. You're protected from prosecution due to whistle blower laws, and maintain your friendship. Granted, he likely ends up in prison, but... well at least you are safe.
I would tell her *after* the wedding so she can demand half of the cheating pr*ck's assets and simultanously collaborate with the feds to expose the money laundering and get immunity in case I get implicated.
If he cheats on her, it's not a wonderful relationship. And once she finds out after the wedding there's a reasonable chance the divorce destroys the firm anyway (possibly bringing the money laundering to light, making you complicit).
This!!! If you remove the question of cheating, and it's just money laundering, I'd probably just look for a job to avoid the eventual prosecution.
Load More Replies...You’re a wild-life photographer on a mission. You and the crew see that there is a group of penguins being attacked. But, you all can save them with a little help. However, you’re not supposed to interfere with wildlife when you’re working. The crew opposes helping them. Would you still try to help them secretly?
Who/what is attacking them? If it’s some government official I’d save the penguins But nature has to take its course I guess
Yeah, kinda depends. I was assuming it was a predator.
Load More Replies...If the attacker is a human hunter, I would interfere. If it is a predator, let it be. Nature's way.
I chose "I wouldn't interfere", but then I remembered I DID interfere in a similar situation years ago. Somewhere in a forest, there was a bird's nest with eggs, and I saw a snake crawling around it. The bird was screaming, flying frantically and desperately trying to chase it away. I poked the snake with a stick. (That was not very smart, I admit it). The snake fell and crawled away, but it might have returned later, so I'm not sure I helped much.
I'm part of nature, and if I want to save the penguins for my own personal reasons, then my actions are part of nature. Based on others' arguments about "nature is nature", saving the penguins is the right thing to do.
And maybe let the predator starve to death? 🤷♂️ then there are all the other animals in nature that also consumes live animals.
Load More Replies...It's wild animals in the wilderness. Save them for the day so they get preyed on tomorrow. That's being attacked twice.
Yes. I once saw a group of crows mobbing another crow, it looked like it wasn't going to end well for the single bird. I could have chased the attackers off, but they would have come back, and it would just have prolonged the agony. So I walked on. I'm still certain I did the right thing, I'm still not happy about it, and I doubt I shall ever forget
Load More Replies...If they were being attacked by a human I'd interfere, but otherwise no.
My though was a predator hwo needed meet to survive?
Load More Replies...You are a philosopher from ancient Greece. You pride yourself on being honest, just, and fair. Despite your reputation, you catch your mother stealing from others. Would you turn her in for breaking the law or would you keep quiet but let it weigh on your conscience for your entire life?
Neither choice is acceptable. Instead of instanty turning her in or stying quiet forever, confront her and demand an explanation. Depending on he answer you could persuade her to give the stolen goods back and ask for forgiveness.
Don't like my mother anyway... about time she pays for her sins.
And this is why the US is in the mess it's in; people think crimes are OK if they know the criminal.
Are you an LEO or representative of the Justice system? Are you unable to make reparations for her? Is her behavior likely to continue no matter what you do short of turning her in? Unless there are yesses to at least one of these questions, and probably more, I'd say of course not.
You’ve launched a website where all people can discuss their political views. You see that there are people who vehemently oppose your political view. They start forming an alliance and the other users of the website say they are disturbed by these people. But, this was supposed to be a website where freedom of speech mattered the most. Would you ban those people from the website?
Unfortunately political differences in the US aren’t based on say, a larger or smaller government, they’re based on human rights. There’s no such thing as differing political opinions when it comes to human rights. You either care about others or you don’t.
I'd counter that with the simple statement that "Freedom of speech" does not mean you also get "freedom from speech". Meaning that people may say things you don't like, or agree with, but you can't really ban it, as when you start doing that, you're edging quite close to at the very least censorship, and at worst, violating their civil rights. Having said that, Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences too.
Load More Replies...Are we talking about hate speech or simply different views? Also, isn't it what is already happening with most social media platforms?
"Forming an alliance" is too vague. What - for example - if they started to manipulate your site's algorithms to suit their ideals? Spread intentional misinformation? Doxx the others?
Yeah, this is an odd question. So I used to participate in a political discussion group we called "Godwin is Dead" (named after Godwin's law, since the guy the law is named for is actually very much alive). We would write posts back and forth debating political topics. There were people from all sorts of opinions in our discussion group, but we had some basic rules we had to adhere to. Chief amongst these was no personal attacks, and no trolling for the sake of making people angry. There were some opinions that others may have found offensive, but they were allowed to continue, so long as they followed our rules of decorum.
Load More Replies...Freedom of speech doesn't imply no consequences for what you say. But again, this is too vague. What does "forming an alliance" mean? Just a group of people who swear and tell me how "ignorant" I am? I'm ok with that. Or a group of people who start harassing and threatening? - if so, they need to learn responsibility for their actions, according to the laws.
Ha. I wouldn’t ban them, but bigoted and idiotic opinions should rightfully be called out.
Attacking the subject of debate is fine, no matter how ugly the words or argument but attacking the opposition with personal insults has no place in any discussion.
Load More Replies...For me, the relevant factor here isn't what "side" they're on; it's the fact that their actions are disturbing others. If the disturbance is solely because of differing opinions, no ban, but if they're being obnoxious or rude about it, I have no qualms about kicking them out, whether they agree with me or not. It's not about "free speech"; it's about manners and behavior.
I would ban them responsibly. Even a 'free speech' site has to have rules. If those rules are followed by everyone, everyone is welcome. If they violate those rules, they are not welcome. Freedom comes with consequences.
You are the captain of a boat. Because of your mistake, the boat stops working and you start floating in the open sea. There is no food and everyone is hungry. Out of desperation, everyone starts plotting and plans to eat someone. Would you sacrifice yourself because of your mistake? Or plot against someone?
Apparently, the people on the boat are idiots.
Load More Replies...This is an unfair question. Once anyone has decided to go cannibalism, it becomes premeditated, and that becomes a legal matter.
If I was in a boat full of plotting would-be cannibals who don't know how to fish, I'd probably give up anyway out of disgust, and let them get on with it.
First person who starves to death gets eaten. Fattest person lasts the longest! Is this why so many people seem to feel threatened or offended by people who are overweight? I'm kidding. I think that it's time to get off the Internet for the night.
The simple fact is that the human desire for survival overrides pretty much all others. And 37% of people are lying to themselves and to this poll.
Not only am I not going to eat anyone, but if it were to come to that, I'd throw myself overboard to keep from being eaten.
If I could think clearly and fearlessly (are we all pretending those are givens?), I would feel obligated to let the group to at least know it was my mistake. Given that I was the captain and ultimately responsible ANYWAY, I'd probably figure I should sacrifice myself. But I don't think the author of the dilemma was considering that. If I weren't the captain, but had made the fateful error, I don't think I could murder someone else to live, or countenance the group committing murder; Depending on who else was among them, I might sacrifice myself to prevent them from being morally guilty of murder.
If I was literally starving to death I'd probably wave bye-bye to ethics because I go into full survival rage mode merely because I missed dinner. After that all bets are off.
*makes note to fill pockets with snacks in case I ever meet Beak*
Load More Replies...You are programming a self-driving car. Imagine there is another vehicle heading straight toward you, and a group of people standing to your right. Your only options are to collide with the oncoming car or swerve and hit the pedestrians. Do you program the car to swerve toward the other vehicle or toward the pedestrians?
If I'm programming a self-driving car, I wouldn't be in the car. I would be at a desk. I would stop programming and jump away if I saw a car heading towards me.
In my country, you are almost always legally liable if you are driving and you hit someone with less protection (a car hitting a biker or a pedestrian, a motorcycle hitting a person, or a truck colliding with a car) even if the other is reckless. People in the car have airbags, seatbelts and protection. Pedestrians do not.
Actually, head for the car. Because well designed cars have built-in safeties to protect drivers in case of crashes. Of course, "well designed" rules out Teslas...
If it's another self driving car they'd better both be programmed for car otherwise both cars will just mass acre civilians.
It's moderately reasonable to survive a car-on-car crash. It's far less likely to survive if you're not in a car and being hit by one.
You own a time machine. But, the catch is that you must do one thing with it. You can go back in time and wipe out someone who has harmed thousands of people, or you can go back in time and you can undo one thing you did in your own life.
If you change the fate of thousands of people, the impact on history would be dramatic. Tampering with your own history, not so much.
Yes, there is no way of knowing what would be unleashed. Unless I had certainty that this person's action was the root cause of the end of the world, I couldn't change history to that extent.
Load More Replies...People forget that big events do not necessarily have single causes. K¡lling Hitler or Stalin is not warranty of things like the Ho!ocaust (gee, thanks BP) or Gulags not existing. Also, while tragic, those events shaped the world as we know it. Try reading Making History by Stephen Fry...
Why would I bother to go back and kïll H, when there are so many people keen to carry on his work even now.
Load More Replies...Whoa only 71% said they’d wipe out a bad person? Hitler wouldn’t have mattered because it could have been anyone, but get rid of Stalin!
Right, but the one thing in my life I'd change was that time I committed genocide.
Load More Replies...Neither. I'd go back to the dawn of the first humans, during the Cognitive Revolution, when those alleged gene mutation(s) in the human DNA occurred. And I'd add additional mutations that would allow humans to cooperate in much larger groups than they can today. History of humanity would look very different (and much better).
I'm nowhere near arrogant enough to think I have the right to meddle with history.
Every change has ripples that get larger the further you go from the point of change, and larger changes have more powerful ripples. Making big changes risks making things worse. Small subtle changes are probably safer, but no change is without risk. I'll risk my own history before risking that of large numbers of people.
You are having a major financial crisis in your life. Someone presents you with two boxes and you have to choose one. They say in the first box, there is 500 dollars but you have to fight 3 people to get it. However, in the second box, there could be somewhere between 1 dollar to 1 million dollars but you have to fight only one person to get it. Which box would you choose?
I'm small and weak! I'd prefer to only fight one person. Mind you, it doesn't say I'd have to win to get the box, so only getting my a*s kicked once by one person sounds better.
LOL thank you this response made me laugh! It made me think of that post where a guy was asked if he could win a debate against 1000 babies 😂
Load More Replies...Do I need to win the fights? What are the details of my financial crisis? Would $500 solve it?
There's enough Youtube videos showing the type of person offering you this choice will only be putting £/$1 in that box.
$500 is not enough incentive to fight 3 people. Fighting 1 person is exhausting.
I'd leave this deal on the table. Unless the people I have to fight are the reason I'm in financial trouble.
Simple probability here. There are one million possible options for the second box; 95,499 of those options result in more money than the first box, with less effort required. This is a stupidly easy choice.
You survived the Titanic and got on a life-boat. Suddenly, you figure out that there are way too many people on the boat and someone has to be pushed out to save the rest. Who would you push into the water: someone who’s badly injured, someone old, or a lifeguard?
The lifeguard has more chance. Charles Lightoller, the highest ranking officer who survived the sinking, saved several people by taking turns on a collapsible lifeboat that had capsized.
"Taking turns" is not the same as being thrown out of a boat. Freezing cold waters took indiscriminately young and strong as well as old and trail frail back then.
Load More Replies...Probably just jump myself bc I couldn’t live with the guilt of killing someone
Honestly, if I felt compelled to take action myself in this scenario, I'd jump out myself. I can make that decision for myself. I don't have the right to make it for someone else.
Probably the lifeguard. he's...a lifeguard. he's probably more apt at swimming than most.
The water is freezing though. He'll die of hypothermia in a few minutes. It all depends on HOW injured the injured dude is. Like a broken leg, or he's bleeding out and will be dead in an hour?
Load More Replies...I had asked who was religious, then pushed out everyone who raised their hand,letting their so called god save them. I'm a problem solver.
You’re a surgeon. You’ve got 3 patients who are on the waiting list for organ transplants. You get into a scheduled operation and you see that your patient doesn’t have long. All their organs started failing. Would you go against the patient’s wishes and give their organs to the other 3 patients?
Poorly phrased question. Is the patient dying or just really sick? If his organs are failing, wouldn't that make them useless for transplant? Also, what are the laws of my country? Am I supposed to get specific consent of the family for the transplant or for *not* removing organs?
"All their organs started failing." If the organs are failing they are of no use? 🤷♂️
Load More Replies...Are the organs failing going to recover if the person receives the transplant?
It's hard not to be distracted by the idea that failing organs are not going to help anyone, but this is a question about organ harvesting from unwilling participants. Would you steal organs? I really worry about the folks voting yes.
I think the point is to ask this at the question of ethics. So remove the legal constraints. Would you harvest the organs of a dead patient to save three living patients, regardless of the wishes of the dead and their family.
Load More Replies..."Against the patient's wishes" is undefined here, because their wishes have not been expressed in this scenario. If they don't want to be a donor, then you don't donate their organs, period. If they have agreed to be an organ donor, then you do everything within reason to save them, regardless of the need for their organs.
If their organs were failing then they wouldn't meet the standard to be transplanted anyway. Why transplant a known 'dud' organ?
Sorry but EVERYONE should donate organs if they can ! it’s selfish not to end off
So you're also opposed to abortion? Her body, your choice?
Load More Replies...You have a teenage son and he has been up to no good for the last couple of years. One day, your nephew and son break into a store and try to rob it. The police call you and you arrive at the store. You know your nephew didn’t do anything and it’s your son’s fault. Would you let them take both of them to the station or only your nephew?
The nephew still broke in. I think this question is poorly worded. I think it's a question of you can protect your son, and only the nephew got caught.
Load More Replies...They both break in but nephew didn't do anything?? Something is f-up in this question.
They're trying to make you choose between the son and the nephew. Turn them both in, but put a word in for the nephew.
Load More Replies...It says they both rob the store, how did the nephew not do anything wrong?
As a mother of a 23yrvold lass n 20 yr old lad I’d march him down to the police myself ! No questions asked n take nephew with us to
I would take both to the police station and turn in my son whilst exonerating my nephew if I ever had to do something like that.
If the nephew didn't do anything, why can't I just blame my son?
Here's a modern ethical question that we all ACTUALLY have to contend with. Do we shop at Amazon, knowing how bad they treat their employees and the awful things Bezos has done, but it's just so convenient to get next day shipping?
Do we continue shopping useless cr&p we don’t need at all knowing how this is destroying the planet?
Load More Replies...Questions do not provide enough information to make an informed decision.
They don't account for all alternative choices either.
Load More Replies...I once asked my sister, "if you found out I m******d someone would you turn me in?" I expected her to have to think about it first but she INSTANTLY said yes! Looks like I'm gonna have to find someone else to help me hide the body...
Friends help you move, good friends help you move bodies. Sister would probably wait until a reward was announced.
Load More Replies...I like the idea of this but not these specific scenarios, I felt like they lacked grounding in reality. Come on, "Throw the animal off a bridge to stop the train". 🤦🏼
For sure. If it's large enough to stop a train, I sure as he££ can't lift it.
Load More Replies...I think the more concessions that are made to these situations allow us to accept an answer more than not having the extra info. Having extra info makes it a logical/understandable choice rather than moral examination. This quiz/poll isn't about finding the best answer, it's about moral possibilities and human nature.
Here's a modern ethical question that we all ACTUALLY have to contend with. Do we shop at Amazon, knowing how bad they treat their employees and the awful things Bezos has done, but it's just so convenient to get next day shipping?
Do we continue shopping useless cr&p we don’t need at all knowing how this is destroying the planet?
Load More Replies...Questions do not provide enough information to make an informed decision.
They don't account for all alternative choices either.
Load More Replies...I once asked my sister, "if you found out I m******d someone would you turn me in?" I expected her to have to think about it first but she INSTANTLY said yes! Looks like I'm gonna have to find someone else to help me hide the body...
Friends help you move, good friends help you move bodies. Sister would probably wait until a reward was announced.
Load More Replies...I like the idea of this but not these specific scenarios, I felt like they lacked grounding in reality. Come on, "Throw the animal off a bridge to stop the train". 🤦🏼
For sure. If it's large enough to stop a train, I sure as he££ can't lift it.
Load More Replies...I think the more concessions that are made to these situations allow us to accept an answer more than not having the extra info. Having extra info makes it a logical/understandable choice rather than moral examination. This quiz/poll isn't about finding the best answer, it's about moral possibilities and human nature.
