The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

The Morality Test

Tony the Tiger said:
Of course it does, why not an extreme situation to test you moral values? It's best way plus this senario was a excerpt from a article in Time magazine approved by professionals. :p
Click to expand...

Meh...I don't think so. Exceptional situations require exceptional means. One can never overlook the context in wich things happen and you take action. That's why this isn't at all an accurate way to test someone's morality. I mean, it's like, for example, saying that, in war, if you kill your enemy 'cause he was gonna kill you (a kill or die situation) then you're a murderer and showed weak morality and are a bad person. Different situation I mentioned but the basic processes are the same.

Things shouldn't be seen in a linear way. We react differently according to the situation at hand...it's called adaptability, something wich is fundamental to us as human beings. We adapt our responses to the situation we're in, we have to, otherwise, we wouldn't survive in the world.
 
Fucker29 said:
Meh...I don't think so. Exceptional situations require exceptional means. One can never overlook the context in wich things happen and you take action. That's why this isn't at all an accurate way to test someone's morality. I mean, it's like, for example, saying that, in war, if you kill your enemy 'cause he was gonna kill you (a kill or die situation) then you're a murderer and showed weak morality and are a bad person. Different situation I mentioned but the basic processes are the same.

Things shouldn't be seen in a linear way. We react differently according to the situation at hand...it's called adaptability, something wich is fundamental to us as human beings. We adapt our responses to the situation we're in, we have to, otherwise, we wouldn't survive in the world.
Click to expand...

Yeah! whaaaatever! and besides you already posted your answer so lets hear from others about this senario :P
 
I love RL's answer.

I would persuade the injured fella to politely exit the raft. If I were to actually throw him overboard, and the other passengers witnessed my action, I could go to prison for murder. No thanks.
 
Hell ya. At least suffocate him so he won't bleed to death or drown.
 
That comes down to the person. If he or she's empathetic, they'll have a weighty thing to consider. It'd be up to the rest of us to ask him or her and take his or her response in consideration during the entire event if we're going to be "civilized" human beings.

Would the injured party be as "immoral" by demanding the right to live as long as possible at the expense of others? Are the others "immoral" for asking for the same right to live at the expense of (one) other?
 
It doesn't really question morality so much as definitions of morality...it's really a simple deontological vs. utilitarian philosophical argument.

I would kick the biggest asshole though.
 
Good point. The question posed supposes a particular definition of what it means to do the right or wrong thing. Likewise, morality isn't only empathy and neither answer could be wrong or right, given that empathy is a neutral concept and applies both ways here.
 
Well, not only would I want the dying person off my boat...I'd manipulate someone else into doing the dirty work. Very Machiavellian that way...

Although, I think you need to explore a few other questions to round out your morality test. These were stolen from various philosophers and a Time Magazine issue on 'What makes us good or evil':

2.) You are on a train that is hurling quickly down the tracks. On board is a switch that will change the rail that you are on. As you approach a switching station, you can see 5 people tied to the tracks on one, and one person tied to the tracks on another.

If you don't flip the switch, the train will go over the 5 person track and kill them all. If you do flip the switch, the track will switch and only one person will be killed.

What do you do?


3.) Your country is currently engaged in a war where enemy soldiers are killing civilians, regardless of loyalties. You, your neighbours and others are hiding in an attic where you can clearly hear the enemy below you. During this time, a baby hiding in the attic starts to cry.

The parents of the baby can not quiet the child down. There are pillows nearby, and the only way to silence the baby and save everyone in the attic is the smother it.

Could you advocate or do the deed?

AND: Could you do it if it were your own child?

4.) You and a criminal partner were caught outside of a bank job. The police do not have enough evidence to convict either of you without testimony from one of you; however, since you were caught with tools they can sentence you for that.

If you speak out against your partner, you'll receive no jail time and they'll do five years.

If your partner speaks out against you, he'll do nothing and you'll do five years.

If both of you speak out, you'll each do ten years.

If neither of you speak, you'll do six months.

What do you do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top