1. #1

    Which of these options are more moral?

    I just read online about this morality question and it goes like this:

    A group of miners are stuck in a mineshaft and it is with your money that we will be able to save them. But you can also give that money to poor children, who may or may not have enough food to sustain themselves.

    Which option would you choose?

    Edit: how do I make a poll?

  2. #2
    The Unstoppable Force RICH816's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    22,337
    Save the miners, they will die if you leave them. If you ignore the children however, they may survive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes View Post
    I do sympathize with these so called terrorist organisations. As far as I'm concerned, at least they are fighting for something they believe in, and for what they see to be the greater good. They're not fighting to line the pockets of statesmen, governors and oil barons. I wish we could the same about the people on this side of the planet.
    Hobbes talking about Al Qaeda and ISIS.

  3. #3
    wait until the miners die, then dig out the bodies and feed them to the children, its a WIN WIN for errrbudy. and more than likely cheaper in the long run because you dont have to worry about any deaths while you dig out the miners

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by RICH1471 View Post
    Save the miners, they will die if you leave them. If you ignore the children however, they may survive.
    Is it the same ammount of money? If so ill keep it to myself tbh. I donate to people who have helped me in the past like march of dimes with my daughter.

  5. #5
    Miners.

    There's always money going to feed the homeless, the less fortunate, etc. There's not a ready fund for emergencies, only aid after the fact. The kids have a shot at survival without my money's help, the miners probably don't.

    EDIT: I wouldn't consider it a more "moral" choice either, just a choice.

  6. #6
    Mechagnome Liagala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by AcrobaticMegalodon View Post
    Edit: how do I make a poll?
    The option is only available when you actually create the thread. There's a checkbox or something for "add poll." You're out of luck at this point.

    To answer the question - as others said, save the miners. The kids have other options, they don't.

  7. #7
    Banned Jayburner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    every one of my key strokes is actually a brush stroke on the canvas that is the off-topic forum
    Posts
    2,195
    This reminds me of my old thread. Execute child-rapists or execute killers that kill old people.

  8. #8
    Well, think about how young the children may be and how much of life they could look forward to? The miners could be 20 to 50 or something years old, and some may have already lived life.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by alltheydoisdance View Post
    wait until the miners die, then dig out the bodies and feed them to the children, its a WIN WIN for errrbudy. and more than likely cheaper in the long run because you dont have to worry about any deaths while you dig out the miners
    Realpolitik types might find this goes a bit beyond the thin veil of decency they try to maintain, an admirable effort though.
    Last edited by Rainiothon; 2012-12-28 at 08:11 PM.

  10. #10
    Mechagnome Liagala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by AcrobaticMegalodon View Post
    Well, think about how young the children may be and how much of life they could look forward to? The miners could be 20 to 50 or something years old, and some may have already lived life.
    So? They're not done living it yet, any more than the kids are. What if those miners are the sole providers for their own children, and their kids would now starve to death because you let their parents die? You can "what if" it to death if you want to. Given the information provided in the OP, the charity-kids have better options available to them than the miners do.

  11. #11
    Miners, through in-action they WILL DIE. The children may live w/o your help and may still die afterwards if you help.
    READ and be less Ignorant.

  12. #12
    sounds like neither is an immoral option, both are moral, and I'm just not sure what 'more moral' means.
    Maybe save the miners, in hopes they will be so happy they donate toward the children fund?

  13. #13
    Old God Winter Blossom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    "Winter is coming"
    Posts
    10,711
    Probably the miners. Their lives seem to be in more immediate danger.

  14. #14
    Moderator Kerdoz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,456
    Noone of the choices are more moral but as almost everyone said, rather saving someone in immediate danger than a perhaps they will be saved.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •