Everyday Dilemmas
You see someone drop a $5 bill in the hallway and they don’t notice. Do you keep it, return it, or leave it where it is?
KEEP IT: you have no moral obligation to return non-vital property to someone. Finders keepers!
RETURN IT: of course you have a moral obligation to return property to its known owner! You'd want others to do the same for you, after all.
LEAVE IT: if you don't intervene, you can't be held morally responsible for the consequences of your actions. Perhaps someone else will make the right choice, but it's not your fault.
Your friend asks you not to sit with someone they don’t like, even though that person is kind to you. Do you listen to your friend or include the other person? Why?
SIT WITH PERSON: this person is kind to you and their companionship matters as much as your other friend does. In a vacuum this person only has demonstrated kindness while your other friend has demonstrated mistrust and control-- this person obviously seems more ideal to sit with. Of course, in real life, a deeper nuance is present.
DON'T SIT WITH PERSON: You shouldn't harm your relationship with one friend just to gain another. Perhaps your friend has good reason: the other person may have bullied them, for instance. Besides, there are more ways to maintain a friendship than just sitting with them, especially in the digital era.
You see a student sitting alone at lunch every day. Do you have any responsibility to check in or invite them to join you, or is it “not your business”? Why?
CHECK IN: you witness the student being lonely and have the capability to help them, so you should. You don't even have to invite them to eat with you, just to talk to them and make sure that they're okay.
INVITE THEM: you witness the student being lonely and have the capability to help them, so you should. You should invite them to eat with you so they can feel included and wanted, it's the nicest thing to do.
IGNORE THEM: while you may witness people being lonely, that doesn't obligate you to care for them. You cannot possibly care for everyone and you don't have to sacrifice your own comfort for others. Besides, they can talk to you if they want to join.
You pick up a friend’s phone to move it and see a notification with a text message pop up. Is it okay to read it “just for a second,” or should you look away? Why?
READ IT: your friend opted not to lock their phone (implied by the message being readable), so their messages should be considered public to all who can see them, like the public nature of a sidewalk. There's nothing wrong with reading what's in front of you.
LOOK AWAY: you have no right to view your friend's private communications without their consent, so you should avoid doing so. You would expect the same behavior from them.
You are the only witness to a minor crime (shoplifting, vandalism) committed by someone who might face very serious consequences because of their background or record. Is it more moral to report what you saw or stay silent because the punishment seems disproportionate?
REPORT THE CRIME: even if you disagree with society's punishment for the crime, setting a precedent that crime is okay if people feel guilty trying you is setting a precedent that crime is tolerable if one has committed crimes before. As much as it would be your moral duty to report the crime if someone else committed it, you are obligated to report this crime.
STAY SILENT: the crime was minor and should not justify the person facing severe punishment. You have the power in your hands to hurt the person greatly and your moral duty should be to protect them, especially because it was a (nearly) victimless crime.
You promised a friend you’d hang out, but you forgot and also promised to help a sibling with something important at the same time. What should you do now?
FRIEND: your loyalty to your friend trumps that of your loyalty to your sibling, even if the pursuit is leisure. You'll have more than enough time with your sibling later.
SIBLING: friends are great, but family is most important. Further, your friend time is simply for leisure and your sibling time is for an important task. Your friend will probably be willing to wait or reschedule as their time is non-pressing.
COMPROMISE: your friend can wait, and perhaps so can your sibling. Time is a finite resource but actions can still be completed in sequence. You please both parties to the best of your ability.
A close friend tells you a personal secret and makes you promise not to tell anyone, but you’re worried about their safety. When is it okay to break that promise?
DON'T TELL ANYONE: you worry about your friend but don't want to compromise your relationship with them, even for their own safety. You trust them to tell you if there's a genuine issue and don't want to burn bridges by assuming the worst. Also, if you tell someone else the secret your friend may not trust you with even more important stuff in the future.
TELL SOMEONE: as much as your relationship with your friend matters to you, their safety matters more. Matter of fact, you care for them because of your relationship with them. You can always report anonymously and just make sure that they're okay. Many crises are temporary and they'll probably be grateful that you cared enough to intervene. You care about them so you should seek the best for them.
A friend texts you late at night saying they’re really struggling emotionally. You’re exhausted and have a big test tomorrow. How much responsibility do you have to respond and support them right then?
CARE FOR THEM IMMEDIATELY: as much as your own priorities matters, your devotion to your friend's wellbeing takes priority. If their crisis could threaten their safety, there is no time to wait-- you have to act immediately. If not, there's no harm in checking. Perhaps you can talk to your teacher tomorrow?
DELAY CARING FOR THEM: You don't need to sacrifice your own comfort to care for others. You can remind them of someone else that can care for them or just care for them tomorrow. You should prioritize yourself and your own future, at least for one day.
CHECK SEVERITY AND THEN DECIDE: it would be unwise to assume that they're in a crisis without checking first, especially because the stakes for yourself are so high. You should check the severity before deciding, and that knowledge will determine your responsibility.
Your friend gives you their Netflix or game password and says, “Don’t share this.” Another friend asks you for it. Is sharing it a small thing or a breach of trust?
SHARE PASSWORD: sharing a password is harmless and supports your other friend. Your helping them save money, which is generally a benefit to them. The friend who gave you the password may be okay with it.
DON'T SHARE PASSWORD: not only is your friend's account at risk (sharing passwords can raise alarm for developers), but you also breach their trust in doing so. They entrusted you with the password under the explicit condition that it not be shared, and you deliberately ignored that commandment. Sharing the password disrespects your honor, your relationship with that friend, and your trustworthiness.
Imagine a world where everyone used an AI that always told them the full, unfiltered truth about themselves and others. Would that world be more moral, or would it destroy necessary forms of kindness and social glue?
TRUTH IS MORAL: an end to lying and deception would be not only a safer world, but also a more friendly world. People know what is thought of them if they choose to ask, so people are encouraged to reflect upon their opinions of others and to change for the better.
TRUTH IS IMMORAL: truth can be temporary and is often subjective. An AI condensing "truth" into comprehensible data would ignore most nuance, causing more issues than it would solve.
You worked hard on a group project, but one person did almost nothing. When the teacher asks how the group worked together, what is the fairest thing to say?
TRUTH ("THEY SLACKED OFF"): actions have consequences, and your groupmate made the active choice to not help. It's only fair that the teacher is informed as such, because it wouldn't be fair for the rest of the group if their success was hindered. Further, telling the truth is often considered morally superior to deliberately lying.
LIE ("EVERYBODY DID THEIR FAIR SHARE"): you don't know what's going on in your groupmate's life and should give them the benefit of the doubt for this one grievance, especially because it's only a school project. Also, the potential losses for your groupmate probably far exceed that of the rest of the group or the teacher-- lying is the altruistic thing to do if the rest of the group agrees.
SAY NOTHING: it's not your responsibility to divulge such information, and your silence provides an alibi should any party become mad at you. Your other groupmates can make the decision for you and you can't be held morally responsible.
Your friend is dating someone you think treats them badly. Is it more loyal to stay silent so you don’t interfere, or to say something that might upset them or hurt the friendship?
STAY SILENT: you respect your friend's autonomy and trust them to solve their own problems. Your assumptions may be wrong, and you don't want to take such drastic risky measures if that's the case. Also, they can seek you out if they want your support.
SAY SOMETHING: your relationship with your friend means that you care for them, and you should realize that by making sure they're okay. They may not have the means to speak up for themselves, especially if they feel threatened, so you should help them through their trying time, even if your friend may get mad at you.
You overhear hateful or prejudiced comments in the hallway that aren’t directed at you. Are you morally obligated to confront them about it?
CONFRONT WHO SAID IT: you can't stand for hate, even if it's not against you. After all, you'd want people to stand up for you in your shoes. You're morally obligated to stand up for other people.
STAY SILENT: even if what you hear is problematic, you're not morally obligated to step in. Confronting every instance of problematic speech that you hear is impossible, so no objective obligation can be assumed. You should prioritize your own self over others, especially because they're only comments.
REPORT IT: while you may not want to confront the hateful individual directly, you can report the instance to someone else, probably an authority. You fulfill your moral obligation to help without risking your own self too much.
Companies collect huge amounts of data about people (location, clicks, messages) to predict behavior and target ads. Is it ethically acceptable to use people’s data in ways they don’t fully understand if they clicked “I agree” once? Why or why not, and what limits (if any) should exist?
YES, THEY CONSENTED: if users knowingly accept conditions of data sharing, then they consent to such activities. If they truly care, they can clear their browser cache to reset the decision. It's ethical to perform such actions will full informed consent.
YES, BUT REFORMS CAN BE MADE: while the data selling is legally acceptable, it's notably naïve to expect people to actually read a long legal notice before consenting to something. The decision should be legible for laypeople, allowing them to make truly informed consent without a legal background.
NO, IT'S MISLEADING: of course not! No one can reasonably assume that laypeople will fully read and understand a verbose legal notice, so it doesn't count as informed consent.
In a disaster (fire, earthquake, zombies), do people have a moral obligation to risk their own safety to help strangers, or is it ethically acceptable to prioritize your own survival first?
RISK SAFETY TO HELP OTHERS: you have an obligation to help others, even at risk to yourself. This is especially true if you can help multiple people: more people are safe, even if you are not. That's a net benefit for society. You have an obligation to help others in their crises, the same way that you'd want them to help you in yours.
PRIORITIZE YOUR OWN SURVIVAL: your own survival is the most important thing to protect, even if that means not helping others. Moral code suggests that you should prioritize your own life and that self-sacrifice is not ideal, because self-preservation allows at least one survival and does not obligate you to harm yourself if you don't want to.
You’re running late and could blame traffic, your parents, or your alarm— even though it was actually your fault. Is it ever okay to shift blame to protect yourself? Explain.
Of course, this is situation dependent.
LIE AND BLAME EXTERNAL FACTOR: In a situation in which tardiness can cause great harm to yourself, the net benefit of lying justifies the action. You're better off and no one else is hurt, so "no harm no foul." In a situation in which tardiness does not matter, there is still little benefit in degrading your image.
TELL THE TRUTH: In a situation in which tardiness can cause great harm to yourself, telling a lie does not justify the deception it spreads. Even if telling the truth could potentially harm your image, a precedent of truth-telling is quite a positive attribute.
A friend shares a belief or value that you find deeply offensive (racist, sexist, or demeaning to a group you care about), but they say, “That’s just my opinion—real friends don’t judge.” Can you stay their friend without silently endorsing their views?
IGNORE IT AND REMAIN FRIENDS: while you may disagree with your friend's belief, that does not nullify their positive aspects. You can hold two conflicting truths at once and not let it get in the way. Also, you don't have to agree with every person you're friends with-- healthy disagreement can be a good thing.
HAVE A DISCUSSION: before cutting your friend off completely or ignoring the belief that makes you uncomfortable, you should have a discussion with your friend first. Talk through what makes you uncomfortably, why they believe that, and how you can move on: should they stop talking about it around you?
CUT THEM OFF: while you may value your relationship with your friend, you can't bring yourself to associate with someone with such a problematic viewpoint, especially because of their manipulative response to it that denies the possibility of a conversation. Being around the friend makes you feel uncomfortable, so you should stop associating with them, at least until they stop espousing the offensive speech.
A family has a tradition of hiding serious health information from an elderly relative “so they won’t worry,” but the person could still make meaningful choices if they knew. Is it ethical to keep them in the dark to preserve their peace of mind?
TELL THEM THEIR MEDICAL INFORMATION: even if it makes them worry, your elderly relative has the right to know information about their own body. They can't make medical decisions without informed consent, thus they can't consent to anything without knowing their own full picture. If you consider bodily autonomy to be a right, your elderly relative should be allowed it.
KEEP THEM IN THE DARK: your responsibility as their relative is to make sure they're comfortable-- if that means keeping them in the dark about their health information, so be it. You're helping them emotionally and reducing their stress levels, allowing them to enjoy their remaining time as happily as possible. What's the harm in that?
ASK THEM: if you ask your relative if they want to be told their health information and they say no, you're perfectly justified not sharing it with them. If they say yes, then you can share it with them. Of course asking may induce suspicion, but that consideration is negligible for the notion of consent.
Your school (Hypothetical - not JCHS!) is considering software that tracks all student online activity on school devices, including after school hours. Is this a reasonable safety measure or an invasion of privacy?
REASONABLE SAFETY MEASURE: students are not adults and are still under the supervision of the teachers around them. Also, as a condition of using school-owned devices, students consent to the school's use of such devices, even including tracking activity off campus. Schools should be made aware if their devices are being used to view or post harmful material, especially if the school could be associated.
INVASION OF PRIVACY: even if the school owns the devices, tracking students outside of school betrays the students' privacy and trust. Students, especially students who can't afford a personal device, should be able to freely use their device off campus without fear of spying.
AI tools can now generate highly convincing fake videos (deepfakes) of real people. If using them is technically legal and “just for fun,” is there any moral difference between making a deepfake of a celebrity and of a classmate?
YES, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE: you know your classmate personally, so you can harm someone that you personally know. You don't personally know a celebrity, so while harm may still be done, you probably won't witness it firsthand.
NO, THERE IS NOT A DIFFERENCE: defaming a person is still defaming a person, no matter who the person is. You have the same responsibility to respect one person's likeness as you do to another, no matter their status or relationship to yourself.
You are offered a major opportunity (scholarship, award, leadership position) that you know another student deserves more, but they have no idea they were even considered. Is it wrong to accept, and do you have a duty to say anything?
ACCEPT OPPORTUNITY: you are not responsible for the decisions of the authority arbitrating the proliferation of this opportunity. Thus, you are not responsible for those who did not receive it, and any guilt you feel won't change the rational fact that you still earned this opportunity. Also, benefiting yourself is generally a good choice. Telling the person not chosen could also make them feel worse for not receiving the opportunity, so telling them would just make their situation worse. You're doing them a favor by staying silent.
TELL STUDENT: you know this other student deserves it more, and your gut is telling you to tell them. Keeping them in the dark disrespects their autonomy and trust-- they should have control over their own destiny. Telling them also doesn't change the fact that you still earned the opportunity, it only gives them the chance to appeal their own application. Relative harm to yourself is minimal, so you should tell your fellow respected student.
TELL AUTHORITY: telling the student would only serve to make them feel worse. You should talk to the authority who decides who gets the opportunity in order to achieve moral balance. They're the ones who made the decision, so they can modify it. Of course, you put yourself at risk by doing so, but perhaps self-sacrifice is best if someone else deserves it more.
Your friend wants to quit your team right before a big game because they want to "focus on school," leaving you and your other teamates in a tough position. Is your primary loyalty to your friend’s feelings or to the team?
RESPECT THEIR DECISION: your friend's feelings and academic success should take priority over the team-- you probably have replacement players, after all. You should respect their decision and allow them to quit. You'd want them to respect your decisions, after all.
CONVINCE THEM TO STAY: in signing up for the team your friend took a responsibility to the group and they should respect that responsibility, at least for the time of one big game. It's unfair to you, it's unfair to the coach, and most of all it's unfair to the team. You can amend your relationship with your friend later.
Do you believe individuals have a stronger moral responsibility to help people in their own community first (friends, family, local community) or an equal responsibility to strangers far away (refugees, global poverty)?
Of course, helping people should not be at a detriment to yourself: just consider Judaism's rule that Jews are to donate at least 10% but no more than 20% of their earnings.
COMMUNITY > STRANGERS: As much as strangers may need help too, your ability to directly help your neighbors is far greater. Because your ability is greater and the cost is lower, you have more of an obligation to help your neighbors than faraway strangers. Also, having a personal connection may increase your moral obligation.
STRANGERS = COMMUNITY: All humans are humans, no matter where they're geographically located (especially considering privileges). Assuming one human is superior to another is utterly problematic and hard to defend without espousing hateful rhetoric. As philosopher Peter Singer argued in his Drowning Child analogy (look it up!), you have the same moral obligation to help a stranger halfway across the globe as you do to help your neighbor.
COMMUNITY< STRANGERS: faraway strangers in dire circumstances (refugees, in extreme poverty, in warzones) have more need for help than your neighbors, so you have more of an obligation to help them. If you can help, you should.
A government uses facial recognition and phone data to drastically reduce crime and terrorism, but it means everyone is constantly tracked. If the system is extremely effective, does that success justify the loss of privacy?
YES, IT JUSTIFIES LOSS OF PRIVACY: security is more important than privacy. After all, privacy doesn't matter much if one's safety is at risk. There are necessary sacrifices that society must take in order to combat threats to public safety, even if those sacrifices are to individual privacy. Besides, public spaces are public anyways, so all information should be allowed to the government.
NO, IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY LOSS OF PRIVACY: privacy is more important than security. Government overreach denies civil liberties and even human rights in many cases, and civilians shouldn't feel threatened by their own government. Privacy is a right unto itself and should be protected for all people, especially involving personal devices such as phones.
Is it morally acceptable for soldiers to kill enemy soldiers in combat during a declared war?
YES, IT'S MORALLY ACCEPTABLE: even if murder is considered immoral, self-defense is considered moral. If soldiers don't kill enemy soldiers, then said enemy soldiers will aim to kill them back. Assuming war would change is naïve and wholly unrealistic. Thus, soldiers can kill other soldiers in relative self-defense.
NO, IT'S NOT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE: Murder is murder, no matter the justification. The taking of a human life is immoral, so it's not moral for soldiers to kill enemy soldiers, or anyone at all for that matter.