Controversial Test my moral compass

[Finalbeta]

The game is quite simple but you should stick to the rules I will declare to ensure that this thread does not break any forum rules and flows smoothly.

You have to ask me a question each time, while also writing down 3 or 4 possible answers to that question, and I will pick the one answer I find the most moral among those you listed.

There's no limit to how many questions you can ask in a single post as long as the conditions are met.

I will not give a detailed answer to the options I pick unless you specifically ask me to do so for that particular question.

This is about ethical questions but no politics must be involved, and no baiting/flaming/trolling is allowed. The questions content must also not be about a specific member of this forum, but must be generic, same for the answers. No violent content is allowed in the questions/answers as they must respect the forum rules.

I will ignore questions not meeting such requirements. I also reserve the right to ignore a particular question if I feel so, and if I'm no more browsing the site it will be impossible for me to answer a question, regardless.

 

[Mathias]

and no baiting/flaming/trolling is allowed.

I will ignore questions not meeting such requirements. I also reserve the right to ignore a particular question if I feel so, and if I'm no more browsing the site it will be impossible for me to answer a question, regardless.

Good luck being appealing to anyone.

 

[HerreraIsBack]

@Finalbeta

Let me give a try then.

A) Is beating a valid way to raise your kids?

1. Yes
2. Yes, but only as last resource
3. No, but you can defend yourself
4. No, never even if your kid wants to spanks you to death

B) Is beating a valid way to raise your pets?

1. Yes
2. Yes, but only as last resource
3. No, but you can defend yourself
4. No, never even if your pet wants to kill you

C) What is your take about lying?

1. Lying is never good
2. Lying is usually not good but some situations it is
3. Lying is not a bad thing but only in some situations
4. Lying doesn't harms at all

D) What is your take about robbery (any kind)

1. Never justified
2. Justfied if your life depends on it
3. Justified if against someone much richer

E) What is your take about men beating woman

1. Never justified
2. Justified if the man life's depends on it
3. Justified if the woman started aggression
4. Equal rights equal lefts

 

[Finalbeta]

@Finalbeta

Let me give a try then.

A) Is beating a valid way to raise your kids?

1. Yes
2. Yes, but only as last resource
3. No, but you can defend yourself
4. No, never even if your kid wants to spanks you to death

B) Is beating a valid way to raise your pets?

1. Yes
2. Yes, but only as last resource
3. No, but you can defend yourself
4. No, never even if your pet wants to kill you

C) What is your take about lying?

1. Lying is never good
2. Lying is usually not good but some situations it is
3. Lying is not a bad thing but only in some situations
4. Lying doesn't harms at all

D) What is your take about robbery (any kind)

1. Never justified
2. Justfied if your life depends on it
3. Justified if against someone much richer

E) What is your take about men beating woman

1. Never justified
2. Justified if the man life's depends on it
3. Justified if the woman started aggression
4. Equal rights equal lefts

A I pick 4. Educating kids using violence is never good in a healthy society, there are other ways.

B I pick 4, or a 3 if I must defend myself depending on which pet we are talking about and what is happening in an extreme situation (if my life is threatened in that moment for instance and I have no other choice, though it's particularly unlikely a pet educated by me would try to kill me).

C I pick 2, if done strategically for a greater good.

D I pick 2 but only in extreme situations where no other option is available and it still depends on case by case, so not a given even so.

E I pick 2. It's meant to be a 1 unless she was a killer or was being particularly dangerous in that specific moment (for example using a knife) and I had no other option to stop her, so in case of extreme, quite unlikely and non-ordinary dangerous situations. But if she was a robber not trying to kill or physically harm me or someone else then I don't think so. In general I would first try to stop her in other ways even in such extreme mentioned cases, trying to disarm or through the police if it was too unnecessarily risky. If she was a robber who was genuinely desperate and non-threatening I could let it go.

So it's a 1 in the quite vast majority of cases in reality. I mean those extreme cases are so far from ordinary lol.

 

[Logiko]

The game is quite simple but you should stick to the rules I will declare to ensure that this thread does not break any forum rules and flows smoothly.

You have to ask me a question each time, while also writing down 3 or 4 possible answers to that question, and I will pick the one answer I find the most moral among those you listed.

There's no limit to how many questions you can ask in a single post as long as the conditions are met.

I will not give a detailed answer to the options I pick unless you specifically ask me to do so for that particular question.

This is about ethical questions but no politics must be involved, and no baiting/flaming/trolling is allowed. The questions content must also not be about a specific member of this forum, but must be generic, same for the answers. No violent content is allowed in the questions/answers as they must respect the forum rules.

I will ignore questions not meeting such requirements. I also reserve the right to ignore a particular question if I feel so, and if I'm no more browsing the site it will be impossible for me to answer a question, regardless.

Mate.. Ethics are political, just so you know...

You can't say "give me an ethical question" and say at the same time "do not make it political". Political debates are all about answering ethical questions in the first place.



If you want an ethical question that will challenge you, I can give you that, but this will be highly political.

 

[Reborn]

Mate.. Ethics are political, just so you know...

You can't say "give me an ethical question" and say at the same time "do not make it political". Political debates are all about answering ethical questions in the first place.



If you want an ethical question that will challenge you, I can give you that, but this will be highly political.

You don't need political question just to test ethics or moral compass nor ethics is always political

 

[Logiko]

You don't need political question just to test ethics or moral compass nor ethics is always political

Politics are the conflicts of values regarding the different way to organize and act and organize in society.

Ethics is all about finding the best way to use morals based on contextual and material evidences. This means the best way to act in and organize society.

Ethics and politics are completely linked.

 

[Finalbeta]

Mate.. Ethics are political, just so you know...

You can't say "give me an ethical question" and say at the same time "do not make it political". Political debates are all about answering ethical questions in the first place.



If you want an ethical question that will challenge you, I can give you that, but this will be highly political.

I distinguish between the two, an ethical question is not necessarily also political because politics deals with how societies should act and coordinate through general rules and norms but this thread is about formulating generic non-political ethical questions to test my personal moral compass, like those presented by Herrera.

So it's a matter of structure... of course I care about politics as it's essential to have societies function.

 

[Reborn]

Politics are the conflicts of values regarding the different way to organize and act and organize in society.

Ethics is all about finding the best way to use morals based on contextual and material evidences. This means the best way to act in and organize society.

Ethics and politics are completely linked.



There is no such thing as ethical general rules. Ethics is a form of critical look over morality and its universality. Ethics areused as a way to make more reasonnable choices based on different contextual factors.

Ethical question also deal with this question of good and bad actions in society and aims to give us a better understanding on the best way to act in the world from a more materialistic point of view.

In other words, ethical questions are highly political ones as well.

Ethics and politics are linked just like ethics is linked with other diverse fields but they aren't the same as you implied in the original post.


You can test someone's moral compass without political debates or questions.

 

[Logiko]

I distinguish between the two, an ethical question is not necessarily also political because politics deals with how societies should act and coordinate through general rules and norms but this thread is about formulating generic non-political ethical questions to test my personal moral compass, like those presented by Herrera.

So it's a matter of structure... of course I care about politics as it's essential to have societies function.

There is no such thing as ethical general (or generic) rules. Ethics is a form of critical look over morality and its universality. Ethics are used as a way to make more reasonnable choices based on different contextual factors.

Ethical question also deal with this question of good and bad actions in society and aims to give us a better understanding on the best way to act in the world from a more materialistic point of view.

In other words, ethical questions are highly political ones as well. You would have to dig deep to find non political ethical question.

So most simple question "should I lie or not to a friends, to prevent them from suffering" is political, because it's basis is social and therefore the question imply a political vision of society.

Ethics and politics are linked just like ethics is linked with other diverse fields but they aren't the same as you implied in the original post.


You can test someone's moral compass without political debates or questions.

I'm not saying they are the same, I'm precise. I'm saying that they are linked and that ethical or even moral question almost (i'm not all knowing) NECESSARILY imply political questions as well.

------

Furthermore. Searching for people to give you ethical questions to test your moral compass while precisely telling them that you don't want them to be political shows by A+B that there is a problem in said ethical/moral compass. In short, I short circuited you thread without any questions.

Or as a wise man once said :

 

[Reborn]

There is no such thing as ethical general (or generic) rules. Ethics is a form of critical look over morality and its universality. Ethics are used as a way to make more reasonnable choices based on different contextual factors.

Ethical question also deal with this question of good and bad actions in society and aims to give us a better understanding on the best way to act in the world from a more materialistic point of view.

In other words, ethical questions are highly political ones as well. You would have to dig deep to find non political ethical question.

So most simple question "should I lie or not to a friends, to prevent them from suffering" is political, because it's basis is social and therefore the question imply a political vision of society.



I'm not saying they are the same, I'm precise. I'm saying that they are linked and that ethical or even moral question almost (i'm not all knowing) NECESSARILY imply political questions as well.

------

Furthermore. Searching for people to give you ethical questions to test your moral compass while precisely telling them that you don't want them to be political shows by A+B that there is a problem in said ethical/moral compass. In short, I short circuited you thread without any questions.

Or as a wise man once said :

Do moral questions are same ?

No - you are mixing things


Moral questions are more personal so they are occasionally political


Ethical questions can be more political than moral questions but when there is shift from individualism to collectivism, when it involves power dynamics and distribution of resources or collective good


However, ethical questions can be without political questions as well.

So, they aren't the same - deeply connected but not same

 

[Finalbeta]

You can test someone's moral compass without political debates or questions.

^

This thread is not meant to be political, otherwise it would most likely result in it being spammed / going off-topic.

 

[Reborn]

^

This thread is not meant to be political, otherwise it would most likely result in it being spammed / going off-topic.

Logiko sees the world as black and white...lol


Anyway, one can raise ethical question without being political


You were searching for a job for a long time. After months, you finally got an opportunity that could solve all your financial problems.

However, on route to your job interview, you end up witnessing a horrible accident - a car crashed into a pole and victim is injured.

But you are also running short on time... there is hardly much time left for scheduled interview.

Should you stop to help or continue to move forward with scheduled interview?


If you care to help, is calling an ambulance enough, or must you personally intervene?

 

[Logiko]

Do moral questions are same ?

No - you are mixing things


Moral questions are more personal so they are occasionally political


Ethical questions can be more political than moral questions but when there is shift from individualism to collectivism, when it involves power dynamics and distribution of resources or collective good


However, ethical questions can be without political questions as well.

So, they aren't the same - deeply connected but not same

I'm sorry, but I think you didn't read what I said. I specifically explained that morals and ethics are two very different things .

But yes, both are linked to political questions. It's a question of logic. Both are intended to answer question about our actions in the world. In other words, they are political.

But hey.. Ask me an ethical question and I will tell you why it's political. Maybe I'm wrong.. who know? :)

^

This thread is not meant to be political, otherwise it would most likely result in it being spammed / going off-topic.

This thread is not understanding its own subject.

That's why I'm intervening here. I'm here to show why your premisse is flawed to begin with. And why the action of not wanting a thread about your moral/ethical compass be a thread about politics IS showing exactly the fact that said moral/ethical compass has a flaw in the first place.

I'm here exactly for the right reason: test a moral/ethical compass. And the answer is simple:

When you separate ethics and morals from politics, you create a place where reality is bended, where context is does not matter anymore and where the impact of choices are deresponsibilized and decontextualized.

In other word, you create a space where ethics are flawed > which means that the moral/ethical compass in question needs reworking.

Logiko sees the world as black and white...lol

On the contrary, I see the colors when you only look at a gradiant of greys.
(ok no more snarky logiko for tonight)

Should you stop to help or continue to move forward with scheduled interview?


If you care to help, is calling an ambulance enough, or must you personally intervene?

Good dilemma (not really). And a major political one:

Should personnal interests (or common interest) in the case of a financial crisis, be prioritized over the action of saving lives ?

You really didn't help your case here lol. I mean, it's literally an ethical question that a large portion of the population choose to reply with "health care should not be taken on MY taxes when I'm already in a financial difficulty"

 

[Finalbeta]

Logiko sees the world as black and white...lol


Anyway, one can raise ethical question without being political


You were searching for a job for a long time. After months, you finally got an opportunity that could solve all your financial problems.

However, on route to your job interview, you end up witnessing a horrible accident - a car crashed into a pole and victim is injured.

But you are also running short on time... there is hardly much time left for scheduled interview.

Should you stop to help or continue to move forward with scheduled interview?


If you care to help, is calling an ambulance enough, or must you personally intervene?

I would check for the conditions of the travelers, for instance any stab wound with associated blood loss, and do first aid while also calling for an ambulance. If they are unconscious and not breathing normally, I would also perform CPR.

The interview will wait, and if the opportunity is gone I will use my intellect to come up with a creative solution, for instance using LLMs that are exceptionally good at searching big data to extrapolate meaningful information through deep research by finding complex patterns and relationships in the data and showing the results.

 

[Logiko]

I would check for the conditions of the travelers, for instance any stab wound with associated blood loss, and do first aid while also calling for an ambulance. If they are unconscious and not breathing normally, I would also perform CPR.

The interview will wait, and if the opportunity is gone I will use my intellect to come up with a creative solution, for instance using LLMs that are exceptionally good at searching big data to extrapolate meaningful information through deep research by finding complex patterns and relationships in the data and showing the results.

Ok let's see if you get what I'm talking about:

You don't have enough to eat, you can't sleep because you are insomniac, you are pressured by your land owner to never invite people in your appartment, you are also mentally unwell with major cases of PTSD that are somehow very strong tonight, you neighboor asked you yersterday that it was the last time that you make so much noise (even tho what you did is only talk to your friend on the phone). You are also harrassed on social networks with a chance to be in danger at the moment.

But you are the only one in proximity with a spare bed and enough room for two and the possibility to help for the next 4 nights and a member of your community that you don't know needs an imperative place to crash out or they will risk major danger in the streets.

What do you do? Do you accept them or do you reject them?

 

[Finalbeta]

Ok let's see if you get what I'm talking about:

You don't have enough to eat, you can't sleep because you are insomniac, you are pressured by your land owner to never invite people in your appartment, you are also mentally unwell with major cases of PTSD that are somehow very strong tonight, you neighboor asked you yersterday that it was the last time that you make so much noise (even tho what you did is only talk to your friend on the phone). You are also harrassed on social networks with a chance to be in danger at the moment.

But you are the only one in proximity with a spare bed and enough room for two and the possibility to help for the next 4 nights and a member of your community that you don't know needs an imperative place to crash out or they will risk major danger in the streets.

What do you do? Do you accept them or do you reject them?

I will take the member in and ask to help me devise a plan to overcome my negative status while also hearing out what the member has to say so that we are stronger together while helping each other out and so is our forming bond.

By the way, this is once again not political... because I'm showing a personal preference on a topic, but I'm not dictating how this should be a political rule that society must follow, that is what a political debate is and this thread is not meant to be political instead. This is about how I see the world and my personal moral compass, but I'm not dictating how the world must be, that's up for a different thread.

Politics is not simply about having personal preferences about something, it is a complex dynamic process where individual desires and values interact with and are shaped by institutional frameworks and the overall collective decision-making processes designed to govern a society. I cannot do politics just by myself.

 

[Reborn]

I'm sorry, but I think you didn't read what I said. I specifically explained that morals and ethics are two very different things .

But yes, both are linked to political questions. It's a question of logic. Both are intended to answer question about our actions in the world. In other words, they are political.

But hey.. Ask me an ethical question and I will tell you why it's political. Maybe I'm wrong.. who know? :)



This thread is not understanding its own subject.

That's why I'm intervening here. I'm here to show why your premisse is flawed to begin with. And why the action of not wanting a thread about your moral/ethical compass be a thread about politics IS showing exactly the fact that said moral/ethical compass has a flaw in the first place.

I'm here exactly for the right reason: test a moral/ethical compass. And the answer is simple:

When you separate ethics and morals from politics, you create a place where reality is bended, where context is does not matter anymore and where the impact of choices are deresponsibilized and decontextualized.

In other word, you create a space where ethics are flawed > which means that the moral/ethical compass in question needs reworking.



On the contrary, I see the colors when you only look at a gradiant of greys.
(ok no more snarky logiko for tonight)



Good dilemma (not really). And a major political one:

Should personnal interests (or common interest) in the case of a financial crisis, be prioritized over the action of saving lives ?

You really didn't help your case here lol. I mean, it's literally an ethical question that a large portion of the population choose to reply with "health care should not be taken on MY taxes when I'm already in a financial difficulty"

You really didn't get it do you?


The dilemma I shared is a case study.

The ethical question one ask determines if it's political or non political one.


Question I asked to beta is non political in nature.

However, the same case study can raise a political Ethical question by asking different question - when it centers around laws involving good Samaritans or traffic regulations or car safety standards.

 

[Logiko]

You really didn't get it do you?


The dilemma I shared is a case study.

The ethical question one ask determines if it's political or non political one.


Question I asked to beta is non political in nature.

However, the same case study can raise a political Ethical question by asking different question - when it centers around laws involving good Samaritans or traffic regulations or car safety standards.

I'm sorry mate, but I think here, you are the one who do not understand. And like I said, it's ok, I precisely came back to be more diplomatic on this questions and find a new way to explain them.

What you shared is a political question. It's not non political. It is by nature, a fundamental question of ethic. Observe that I didn't change the question when I applied it to anti-healthcare struggling people. It's the EXACT same dilemma.

As I said, where there is ethics and morals, there is always politics.

I will take the member in and ask to help me devise a plan to overcome my negative status while also hearing out what the member has to say so that we are stronger together while helping each other out and so is our forming bond.

By the way, this is once again not political... because I'm showing a personal preference on a topic, but I'm not dictating how this should be a political rule that society must follow, that is what a political debate is and this thread is not meant to be political instead. This is about how I see the world and my personal moral compass, but I'm not dictating how the world must be, that's up for a different thread.

Politics is not simply about having personal preferences about something, it is a complex dynamic process where individual desires and values interact with and are shaped by institutional frameworks and the overall collective decision-making processes designed to govern a society. I cannot do politics just by myself.

And yet, what I just gave you was a political and ethical dilemma.

The person you just welcome (good choice btw) is a queer person, most likely a trans woman rejected by her family and threatenned by people both in her family and in her circle. In other words, in that specific case, you are also a LGBTQI+ person with a very problematic situation that could cost you everything every seconds of your days and night.

This is a BASIC scenario that happens regularily in the LGBTQI+ community (and more precisely in the trans active circles). What you choose to do what a political choice.

The choice to put yourself in danger and to refuse a system target a person in a worst situation than you. It's an selfless choice, an amazing one in fact. And a choice that trans women have to make often in the actives circles, but a highly political one.

As you can see, when you remove the context, you remove the ENTIRE weight of the dilemma and you lose the reason why such choices are needed in the first place.

This is why asking ethical question while refusing to talk about politics is a BAD and UNETHICAL thing to do. You asked us to test your ethical compass, your vision of the world, that's exactly what I'm doing here.

Ps: Removing the context also prevents you from understanding deeply why it's actually a bad idea to ask said person to help you fix your situation when they already struggle to fix theirs. They are in danger and they just got out the streets, remember ? The best thing to do is to listen to them, not for them to listen to you ;) (but I disgress)

 

[Finalbeta]

@Logiko ChatGPT agrees with me: