Ethics and Choice

CHOICE 35:

The Inevitable Racist

There are three rooms in each one is placed single person each of which all are of different races. You have no connection to these people other than the fact that you are all people.
ROOM 1:

In Room 1 you have an African from Zimbabwe (they are not melatonin challenged) if you open the door to Room 1 you save this person.

ROOM 2:

In Room 2 you have a European from France (they are melatonin challenged) if you open the door to Room 2 you save the cheese eating surrender monkey.

ROOM 3:

In Room 3 you have an Asian from Mongolia if you do not open the door to Room 3 they will die.

I realised you tried your best, but the answer to this question doesn't necessarily have to be motivated by race. You've given us more information about each person; namely, their country of origin. Not a whole lot of information, to be sure, but it's something.

So, let's be countryist. Now, which country do I like better out of Zimbabwe, France, and Mongolia? Well, as I just realised, describing these people requires 'Zimbabwean', 'French person', and 'Mongolian'. So bye-bye France. 'Zimbabwean' is a far cooler word.

Open Door 1.

Now ask yourself why did you choose an African over an Asian. Obviously you were never meant to choose the Frenchy, but what is your sub-conscious mind telling you.

My bad; I was unclear:

Supreme Overlord (Fixed) wrote:So bye-bye France.

'Zimbabwean' is a far cooler word than 'Mongolian'.

My subconscious is telling me that in order to distinguish between otherwise equal people, I have to identify arbitrary differences, like which of two words appeal to my sense of aesthetics.

Is that so or is it your sub-conscious trying to justify your irrational racism

It's interesting; my first thought was to save the Frenchy - which is probably what you would define as irrational racism, but was probably closer to more empathy/identification due to Australia's European heritage.

However, after thinking that it was immediately clear that it was a stupid reason, so I decided to find an equally stupid reason. Let's be honest here, I don't really care about any of these people, so if Mr Zimbabwe can make the world a slightly more interesting place by having the 'bwean' sound, why not give him the chance.


Now, what I've just realised is that you're engaging in rationalisation. You've already written your bottom line, 'Member X is racist', and no matter what response you get you can take it as evidence of your conclusion. At least I'm willing to consider my responses and weigh up the given information before coming to a decision, flawed as it may be.
Note: you can refute that accusation very simply; all you need to do is provide a response with which you wouldn't conclude that that person was racist.

This question isn't designed to prove that you're racist, this question is supposed to make you question any form of cultural bias you may hold but not really relaise you hold, You said your first reaction was to save the Frenchy, but then you said that you purposefully found a reason on which you based the response to the question in order to answer it. You are supposed to answer it and then think about why you answered it that way, what in-built bias may you hold against the other two that made you pick the one you picked.

Darth Skywalkerbacca wrote:You are supposed to answer it and then think about why you answered it that way, what in-built bias may you hold against the other two that made you pick the one you picked.

Sorry, I didn't realise we were supposed to provide a knee-jerk reaction when deciding the fate of people's (fictional) lives. Given time to think, I prefer to use that time. Surely a well thought out response is better for analysis than s plit-second decision.

Save the Mongolian!
no reason I flipped a coin, because in a real situation I don't believe that I would have the right to choose life or death for people.

If I Could Rewind wrote:I don't believe that I would have the right to choose life or death for people.

Ah, but here Darth has given you the right. If you don't save them, who will?

yes Overlord your well thought out response of 'it sounds better' is definitely a better form of analysis then a split second decision.

Lights flash, sirens blare and you hear screaming coming from every room, your indecision has cost the lives of three people you should both be ashamed of yourselves.

CHOICE 36:

The Midas Conundrum

ROOM 1:

In Room 1 there are the 7 dragon ball from Earth, if you open the door to Room 1 you will be granted one wish (anything you want).

ROOM 2:

In Room 2 there is your best friend, if you do not open the door to Room 2 they will die.

Room 1. No question.

Example Wish:

not the most useful wish Overlord, you use your wish in order to counteract the your choice and hence waste your wish.

Note 'example'

Actual Wish:

ok what if the wish was limited in the fact that you couldn't give yourself the power to counteract the decision?

hmmmm
If that is the case I would have to open room 2
but I feel like their are still many loopholes to exploit.
anyway I would probably pick room 2 if were only looking at the spirit of the question. However their are a lot of loopholes in this situation through which you can achieve both options.

I'd still go room 1; omnipotence limited by one exception is still worth more than a single life. For example, establishing immortality for everyone else.

Side note; the first example wish wouldn't have been wasted after reviving the dead friend; you could then go on to resurrect anyone who ever has or ever will die.

what if I said you have one wish (anything you want) limited to the fact that anything you want must be a particularly delicious cookie?

If it was a sufficiently large particularly delicious cookie, whenever I got sad about condemnning my friend, I could tae a bite and cheer myself up.

So, resolution?

lights flash sirens blare, both doors are closed and not only do you kill your BFF but you also destroy the dragon balls, indecision's a bitch.

CHOICE 37:

The Clone

One night after an experiment gone totally wrong ended in the creation of a perfect clone replica of yourself with your exact likness and memories you are kiddnapped and trapped in two room.

ROOM 1:


If you don't open the door to Room 1 you will die, or will you?


ROOM 2:


If you don't open the door to Room 2 you will die, or will you?


Only I know which room houses the clone and which the real, now you must decide which is which.

For all intents and purposes, we're both the 'real' original. So by the definition of 'me' as 'the mind and body of the original person', both the clone and the original fit that definition.

However, there is another definition of 'me', which is 'the one thinking this'. Clearly by this definition only 'I' am 'me', and the other person (whether they are the clone or the original) is someone else, albeit someone very similar and, if they are exposed to exactly the same stimuli, will react exactly the same.

I want to save 'me' by the second definition. Unfortunately, seeing as I don't know which room 'I' am in, I'm essentially picking at random. So there's not exactly a lot of tension in this decision.
"OK, open door 1."
"Oh, the original was in room 1, but 'you' were the clone in room 2. You just died."
"Big whoop, I could have just as easily flipped a coin and picked room 2."

Trying some analysis, I'm second-guessing that Darth would have made 'me' the clone (in a futile attempt to attack my sense of identity). I also am guessing that 1: Original; 2: Clone is too straightfoward for someone trying to be tricksy. No, I'm not going to take this recursive.

So open Door 1.


Side note: apparently the experiment had 'gone wrong'. What was it supposed to do? Isn't the creation of a perfect clone a pretty awesome side effect?

If I said that you had both been knocked out and both placed in the one room from which only one could escape, you don't know who is the original and who is the clone though.