Moral dilemas

I like this kind of brain teasers. I kept seeing some on different sites and buzzfeed lol.

I will post some here for us to debate.

us = the small fragment of people who will actually wander here.

I don, t like words, I prefer and would like a nonverbal communication. Language is false, no-sense, like hypnotic. I think humanity lost this ability and modern languages are false and misleading, invented to pervert everything.
Some Indians don't have words "give" or "receive", have only one that meaning give-receive-get-back.
You understand what I mean? Modern language shapes the mind perversely, human degenerates.

No, he shouldn't poison him.

What he does after this night to other people does not fall on the doctor's shoulders as guilt.

Also..the people he would infect, I'm assuming he wants to do that via unprotected sexual contact. If so, those people have the responsibility to look after themselves and practice safe sex. Had it not been Ken who infected them, there are high odds they'd find themselves infected at some point in life due to them not practising safe sex. Their lack of responsibility doesn't fall on ken or the doctor.

Is it only her baby in the other room or other babies also?

I see different ways of going about this.

I'd go with the third option on this and take the baby in my arms and make him stop crying..

But I think we only have two options to make the dilemma hard.

Anyway, I'd put it up to a vote with the rest of the villagers. Majority decides.

Robbin' Hood

You are an eyewitness to a crime: A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children. You know who committed the crime. If you go to the authorities with the information, there's a good chance the money will be returned to the bank, leaving a lot of kids in need. What do you do?

Posted by Damnata
No, he shouldn't poison him.

What he does after this night to other people does not fall on the doctor's shoulders as guilt.

Also..the people he would infect, I'm assuming he wants to do that via unprotected sexual contact. If so, those people have the responsibility to look after themselves and practice safe sex. Had it not been Ken who infected them, there are high odds they'd find themselves infected at some point in life due to them not practising safe sex. Their lack of responsibility doesn't fall on ken or the doctor.

Murder is murder.

But it may bring some fruits if the doctor tells him he got the idea to poison him and refused to do it. Cause murder is murder. That he does not want to lose his value system.

Maybe Ken changes his mind later. (well, for example if universe sends him another sign)

Posted by DwellingOnMove

Posted by Damnata
Robbin' Hood

You are an eyewitness to a crime: A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children. You know who committed the crime. If you go to the authorities with the information, there's a good chance the money will be returned to the bank, leaving a lot of kids in need. What do you do?

Banks have too much money. some of them is virtual. no report needed.

viva el Rob!

click to expand

That was exactly what I thought at first. But then I realized..by robbing the bank, he doesn't go against this huge bank, he goes against the people who made deposits for homes etc. Robbing the bank will drive those people into foreclosure or if they only have a small amount of cast stashed up, right into proverty.

It wouldn't be the bank who loses, it would be the people who have open accounts there. I don't think they would get reimbursed so a lot of people would be on the streets as opposed to the orphanage scenario where, as cynical as it sounds, they won't miss what they didn't have.

Posted by beautifuldiaster

Posted by Damnata
us = the small fragment of people who will actually wander here.

Hello!!1111 😄 I can't get over this board LOL!!!!!!!

So I googled some moral dilemmas to start it off.


#1. The Deliberate Infection

Ken is a doctor. One of his patients, whom he has diagnosed as HIV positive, is about to receive a blood transfusion prior to being released from the hospital. He has told Ken, in the confidence of their doctor-patient relationship, that after he gets his transfusion, and his medicine from Ken, he intends to infect as many people as possible with HIV starting that evening.

Because Ken is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, there is no legal way to stop this man from carrying out his plan. Even if Ken warned the police, they would not be able to arrest him, since his medical information is protected.

It occurs to Ken that he could contaminate his medication by putting an untraceable poison in it that will kill him before he gets a chance to infect others.

Should Ken poison this man in order to prevent him from spreading HIV?

click to expand

We discussed something similar to this in class.

Posted by Damnata
Robbin' Hood

You are an eyewitness to a crime: A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children. You know who committed the crime. If you go to the authorities with the information, there's a good chance the money will be returned to the bank, leaving a lot of kids in need. What do you do?

Take the truth to my grave. These little ones are our future.