Prompt 1: You see a man sprint past you and turn down an alley, and seconds later you see a different man with a gun in hand run to you and say, "Which way did he go?" What is your moral obligation to respond with no outside information?
Prompt 2: What is it that makes Christianity such a widely accepted religion, and why do we look down on Scientologists? What is the difference between them?
Prompt 3: Are we in the Matrix?
Response to prompt 1:
This is a moral conundrum that has been talked about by many great minds of our generation, but it is one where there is no clear answer. For instance, if the man who runs past you is an innocent person, then obviously the right thing to do is to lie. But the odds are equally likely that he is a guilty man and the person running after him could be a police officer doing his job. So only considering these facts, it would be morally sensible to tell the truth because with no outside information, there is a 50/50 chance of either, and lying is an unnecessary moral wrong. But the second man does have a gun, and it can be reasonably concluded that it will be used to kill the first man. Does the morality of lying still outweigh the cause of a death? Most people say no, but there is no right or wrong answer, instead it is a question of which morals you personally hold in a higher regard. Saving a life of a possibly innocent but possibly guilty man, or being honest and causing the death of this possibly guilty and possibly innocent man?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.