Tough, TOUGH Questions - Are You Moral?

[Admin]

Take this quiz and see -- http://www.time-blog.com/graphics_script/2007/moralityquiz/index.html

- Dan

[BillyB]

My fiancee said she could never kill a person to save her life but she has no problem if I killed somebody for a just cause. Who's more moral?

I'm not sure the quiz results will determine who is really moral or not. Everybody who answered one or the other answer believed they are making the right moral decision.

I don't understand why the quiz did not ask to sacrifice your own life in some situations?

Say you were in a foxhole with four other soldiers. A live grenade gets thrown in the foxhole and you're the only one that saw it happen. With seconds to react, what do you do? 1) Yell "grenade!" and hope everyone takes protective action but most likely everyone will die anyway since the grenade is only a few feet from everyone. 2) Throw a fellow soldier on the grenade saving your's and the other 3 soldiers lives. or 3) Throw yourself on the grenade saving the other 4 soldiers lives. The best and most moral choice is #3.

[wxman]

Those are tough ones to answer. On one hand it's easy to say I would always take the high road and not purposely kill one to save others, but when we are actually faced with such decisions, with only a few seconds to decide, survival instincts kick in. I think it would be actually easier for one to sacrifice their own life to save others, than to decide who must die. I can only imagine the mental conflicts medics faced during wars when they had to abandon a wounded man who he knew was going to die, to save another wounded soldier who he knew would live with his help.

[timothe]

I don't understand why the quiz did not ask to sacrifice your own life in some situations?

Because it's Time magazine.  The thought of any American being that unselfish did not cross their minds.

[Jet]

It was interesting to note the difference in they way most answered question #1 vs #2. There is actually a third choice for #2 but they don't offer it, and I'm not sure why, as I'd have picked that third choice  :noidea:

(sorry for sounding so cryptic but don't want to spoil the test for others just yet)

[BillyB]

Life and death is one thing but how would one do when it came to making moral decisions not as serious? Abraham Lincoln walked 5 miles to return a penny to it's owner. The little things people do like that count big IMO.

Here's a story of an illegal immigrant who successfully crossed the border but instead of trying to finish achieving one of his life's goals, he chose to help a boy survive in the desert until rescuers arrived.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312686,00.html

[ScottinCrimea]

As part of advanced trauma life support training and army field surgical training (no, I wasn't in the military but did take the course) we are presented with scenarios of mass casualties where we must decide who to focus our attention on and who to leave to die.  Some very tough situations were presented.  The whole point was to teach us to let our clinical decision skills override our emotions and (perhaps) our moral background so that we could do the most good for the maximum number of individuals.

I have since seen that most people are relieved to have someone who is capable of making such decisions and to whom they can defer.  It was never a position I relished, but one that by nature of my chosen profession was necessary.

[William3rd]

Jet- are you referring to something like asking for volunteers first?

[jb]

Being the selfish, self-centered-a-hole that I am, I have no problem wringing the baby's neck or throwing the cripple out of the life boat.   Life is not fair, only the strong survive.  However, if you are someone I care deeply about, I'll throw you out last.