The Real Last Morallity Poll

[Prince_Imrahil]

EDITED for clarity and better choice...

There is a drought. You and this other family have shared access to this one granary and you both took equal amounts up until now. Now there is this one last bit of food that only ONE of your families can take to save that family. For whatever reason, You are the one who gets to choose if you take the food to save your family of four, or you let the other family of ten take the food so they can live.

Which is the Right thing for You to do?

Option 1: You take the food from the granary so your family of four can live through the devastating drouhgt and survive

or

Option 2: you let the family of ten take the food and live while your family dies


Which is the Right thing for You to Do?

P.S You can NOT share the food or steal only as much that the whole family of ten wont die. Silly scenario yes, but thats not what matters.

Its your family or that one you dont know, but has more people in that family. Good people, hardworking, honest et all. will turn out just as good as your family if they lived but with more good people to boot.

And HONESTLY THIS IS THE LAST OF THESE SILLY POLLS!!! If not, report me to the mods and let them know I agree that if I post anymore polls after this in the next 24 hours I can be banned.

Thanks

 

[Ramius75]

I cant let anyone die in place of my family. Its their food anyway.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

Its their food anyway.

QFT. (ten char)

 

[Nobody]

i didnt option 2 when i meant option 1

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

K guys changed the scenario to better reflect a dilemma instead of making you out to be a cold hearted bastard one way....

 

[Kraznaya]

It still seems quite unclear to me, but I'm probably just too tired.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

you have a choice to save your own family, or let your family die so another family, a much larger one at that, can live.... is your moral obligation to your family or to the most people who can live and benefit out of this?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Since you asked: what is the right thing, option 2.

But in the situation I'd probably even fight that other familly for the food, as the selfish bastard we all are, so mine can live and it would be option 1.

And your polls aren't that slly, but they are depressing, since they remind me about the selfish bastard thing each time

 

[Phlegmak]

These morality questions are ridiculous. The world doesn't work quite so rigidly as the opening post suggests.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Prince your series of morality threads all had in common the linking of morality with numbers. For the sake of argument if we're going to say that X is 'immoral' that should be it. Whether more or less people are adversely effected should have no bearing on the severity of the immorality.

 

[Swedishguy]

One more of these polls. The world doesn't work like that. Let me make another scenario:

I have decided to take over the world, don't ask why, all I've got is a handgun. If I kill everyone in the world I will be unharmed in the end and will live a happy life ever after. If I kill everyone that makes resistance and leave the rest alone I will loose my toes. What should I do? And I will succeed.

 

[Mirc]

I'm not entitled to vote in this poll, as I don't have the most normal feelings towards my family.

 

[Eukaryote]

I take the food and the other family can die.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Again like all the other polls I would save my family over the strangers. It sucks to be the strangers, but my loyalties lie with my family and friends over complete strangers.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Prince your series of morality threads all had in common the linking of morality with numbers. For the sake of argument if we're going to say that X is 'immoral' that should be it. Whether more or less people are adversely effected should have no bearing on the severity of the immorality.

But IS that it? Murder is immoral, but killing in self-defense isn't, what's the difference? The motive? So then there is a difference.

Now then, forget about the numbers, and ask yourself, would you treat your family with the same impartiality as you would everyone else?

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

I have decided to take over the world, don't ask why, all I've got is a handgun. If I kill everyone in the world I will be unharmed in the end and will live a happy life ever after. If I kill everyone that makes resistance and leave the rest alone I will loose my toes. What should I do? And I will succeed.

What's should you do? depends on whether you value your toes and happiness or value people to rule over and human company. No matter how stupid your scenario is, that's not what matters. If i said kill em all, that means I personally would rather keep my toes and use my world labs to build new artificial humans!

These morality questions are ridiculous. The world doesn't work quite so rigidly as the opening post suggests.

What works rigidly is when it comes down to you deciding to buy yourself a plamsa screen tv instead of donating that money to charity. Hardly a case of, well, but, though, you know, also, and maybes.

 

[Phlegmak]

I've decided to kill my family and all the others.

 

[Swedishguy]

I've decided to kill my family and all the others.

That means you will have to die as well. Not very clever, if you're goal is to survive.

 

[JohnRM]

Without hesitation, I would save my family first. My primary obligation is to them. To hell with anyone else.

 

[Nylan]

It's simple math

10>4

and I'm sure my family would approve of this decision as well.