How do you decide what is right or wrong to do in a situation?

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

Title question is enough
But a tad bit more direction, what do you consider for these? How do you do it? http://psychopixi.com/uncategorized/25-moral-dilemmas/

I just act by instinct with morals and it helps me care for people, I don't think long or anything or have a process so I hope to learn here because sometimes I regret what I did and have no way to answer why

 

[Lain]

Title question is enough
But a tad bit more direction, what do you consider for these? How do you do it? 25 Moral Dilemmas | Pixi's Blog

I just act by instinct with morals and it helps me care for people, I don't think long or anything or have a process so I hope to learn here because sometimes I regret what I did and have no way to answer why

I consider, not necessarily in this order (although I have written these in their importance, least to most):

1) My subjective intention in doing the act. This is easy to change, if I have a bad one I can just change it to a good one.
2) The circumstances and consequences. The when, where, what will result, amount, and so on. The foreseen good consequences must be equal or greater to the bad, but there can be bad.
3) The nature of the act itself. This is unchanging and so is the most important thing to discern.

All three must be good for the act to be good, if even your intention is bad and the rest are good (such as with almsgiving so as to be praised for it) then you've done wrong to me. Yet even so different judgments can be made for different situations, and there can be multiple good options.

For some of those you linked my answer would be:

Runaway trolley, no pushing (act is murder).
Deliberate infection, no poisoning (act is murder). Perhaps I'd just not treat them, not sure.
Hostage ecologist, no torturing (act is torture, which I consider to be evil).
Life insurance, no murdering.
Lifeboat, I would not throw it. There is no reason to do so that I see.
Concentration, no torturing or killing.
Unfaithful wife, I would attempt to save her due to being bound by marriage.

These are interesting although there are many of them. Some of them cause me to have many questions about causality to have a good answer or any answer so I just skipped that. I need to study more, pray, fast, and so on.

You can learn more from the Scripture, Saints, and other sources of grace to become more just and discern better. Better persons can discern situations better than lesser persons.

Usually I do not have to break down an act like this though, as I know what I need to do, my life is not that complicated.

All the above is my opinion of course.

 

[PureX]

Most times it can be intuitive so long as I'm awake and sober. But sometimes it can be agonizing, too, when it seems like no one can win. And sometimes I just can't make a determination. Not enough information. I try to err on the side of kindness, forgiveness, support, and so on just because I know we all need these, as flawed and confused humans. But I also have to know my own limitations, and when to say "no" because humanity can be a bottomless pit of need.

Thank God perfection is not a requirement.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The first two I wouldn't know. Unless, in the first, I guess ask the trapped person what she'd rather do. I don't know in real situations, but most cases I've heard and watched the dying person would say yes after a moment of accepting death in general. I wouldn't pick the option haphazardly though. The second I've never been one to put majority over a minority. I guess in common theory, save the five people and kill the person off the cliff. But if you think of it as you can't stop the train (can't control your circumstances) but you CAN control killing someone for other people, I'd say the latter is better than the former-this is only assuming that we have no control over what happens to us but our own actions.

Technically, in the third, doctors (and therapists) must inform authority if someone is in immediate danger or danger to other people. I wouldn't poison the man, though. It's not my place to do so. From a legal perspective, that can fall on me especially if I had a motive. Morally, though, no. Reminds me of capitol punishment which I don't agree with either.

I don't know about the hostages one. That sounds more to do with one's moral character. If I were Tom and killed the other hostages, I wouldn't feel better because I saved the kids. I guess it depends on if Tom want's to go down with the ship. When I'm crossing the street regardless if its an adult or kid, I walk on the outside and let them walk on the inside. Something about second nature says save others before me. Why. I don't know.

In general, I wouldn't be happy to save a bunch over a few or save children over adults. To justify based on majority or age to me kind of divides the value of life which should be equal to all people since adults were kids too. But in either case, I wouldn't know what to do. Probably in scenarios where I would die to save others, that would probably be my choice. To save the majority by killing a few, I'd probably give that decision to someone else.

 

[sun rise]

But a tad bit more direction, what do you consider for these? How do you do it?

I did not read all 25 but a few all repeated a choice which Star Trek also asked "do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"

Thinking about the dilemma's I'm struck by the assumption of certainty. The premise is that we know with certainty two possible outcomes. But most of the time we don't. We have possibly some facts and some assumptions.

So my first step assuming a snap decision is not needed is to ask what we do and don't know and what is subject to assumption and conjecture.

Beyond that, my choice should be based on love and compassion.

If for example the one/many had one person who was sole support of a family and many would suffer if that person died while the many had extended support systems where the families would be well cared for, my thoughts would be different than one person who had a fatal illness anyway.

In the end, I'd pray that my decision was correct.

 

[Stonetree]

Most times it can be intuitive so long as I'm awake and sober. But sometimes it can be agonizing, too, when it seems like no one can win. And sometimes I just can't make a determination. Not enough information. I try to err on the side of kindness, forgiveness, support, and so on just because I know we all need these, as flawed and confused humans. But I also have to know my own limitations, and when to say "no" because humanity can be a bottomless pit of need.

Thank God perfection is not a requirement.

Doesn't everyone mentally prepare for many moral dilemmas. What would I do If_____? I've often thought of situations that may arise and how to handle them, morally speaking.

 

[Nakosis]

Title question is enough
But a tad bit more direction, what do you consider for these? How do you do it? 25 Moral Dilemmas | Pixi's Blog

I just act by instinct with morals and it helps me care for people, I don't think long or anything or have a process so I hope to learn here because sometimes I regret what I did and have no way to answer why

I suspect moral dilemmas are only dilemmas because we try to come up with a rational answer.
Whereas morals are based on feelings. Feelings are most often not rational.

Right and wrong are feelings. Unfortunately, most usually we can't identify the source of our feelings.
We have this idea that we need to be rational and ought to have a rational answer for our moral choices when we don't and can't.
Of course we can make up a rational answer to our moral choices but it won't be the right one because we mostly don't even know why we feel what we feel.

 

[SalixIncendium]

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective terms based on individual perspective. I personally don't find much use in these terms.

When deciding what course of action to take in any given situation, I assess the situation and determine possible outcomes of my choices of actions.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

I consider, not necessarily in this order (although I have written these in their importance, least to most):

1) My subjective intention in doing the act. This is easy to change, if I have a bad one I can just change it to a good one.
2) The circumstances and consequences. The when, where, what will result, amount, and so on. The foreseen good consequences must be equal or greater to the bad, but there can be bad.
3) The nature of the act itself. This is unchanging and so is the most important thing to discern.

All three must be good for the act to be good, if even your intention is bad and the rest are good (such as with almsgiving so as to be praised for it) then you've done wrong to me. Yet even so different judgments can be made for different situations, and there can be multiple good options.

For some of those you linked my answer would be:

Runaway trolley, no pushing (act is murder).
Deliberate infection, no poisoning (act is murder). Perhaps I'd just not treat them, not sure.
Hostage ecologist, no torturing (act is torture, which I consider to be evil).
Life insurance, no murdering.
Lifeboat, I would not throw it. There is no reason to do so that I see.
Concentration, no torturing or killing.
Unfaithful wife, I would attempt to save her due to being bound by marriage.

These are interesting although there are many of them. Some of them cause me to have many questions about causality to have a good answer or any answer so I just skipped that. I need to study more, pray, fast, and so on.

You can learn more from the Scripture, Saints, and other sources of grace to become more just and discern better. Better persons can discern situations better than lesser persons.

Usually I do not have to break down an act like this though, as I know what I need to do, my life is not that complicated.

All the above is my opinion of course.

Very informative thank you

Have you ever had a weird result from your process here?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

Most times it can be intuitive so long as I'm awake and sober. But sometimes it can be agonizing, too, when it seems like no one can win. And sometimes I just can't make a determination. Not enough information. I try to err on the side of kindness, forgiveness, support, and so on just because I know we all need these, as flawed and confused humans. But I also have to know my own limitations, and when to say "no" because humanity can be a bottomless pit of need.

Thank God perfection is not a requirement.

What does it feel like to intuit it? I like your err, I'd like to be like that more

How do you know when to say no?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

In general, I wouldn't be happy to save a bunch over a few or save children over adults. To justify based on majority or age to me kind of divides the value of life which should be equal to all people since adults were kids too. But in either case, I wouldn't know what to do. Probably in scenarios where I would die to save others, that would probably be my choice. To save the majority by killing a few, I'd probably give that decision to someone else.

I feel the same way, its very hard and sad

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

I did not read all 25 but a few all repeated a choice which Star Trek also asked "do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"

Thinking about the dilemma's I'm struck by the assumption of certainty. The premise is that we know with certainty two possible outcomes. But most of the time we don't. We have possibly some facts and some assumptions.

So my first step assuming a snap decision is not needed is to ask what we do and don't know and what is subject to assumption and conjecture.

Beyond that, my choice should be based on love and compassion.

If for example the one/many had one person who was sole support of a family and many would suffer if that person died while the many had extended support systems where the families would be well cared for, my thoughts would be different than one person who had a fatal illness anyway.

In the end, I'd pray that my decision was correct.

It is a situation with certainty

If you had even all support info how would you go? Most love shared?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

I suspect moral dilemmas are only dilemmas because we try to come up with a rational answer.
Whereas morals are based on feelings. Feelings are most often not rational.

Right and wrong are feelings. Unfortunately, most usually we can't identify the source of our feelings.
We have this idea that we need to be rational and ought to have a rational answer for our moral choices when we don't and can't.
Of course we can make up a rational answer to our moral choices but it won't be the right one because we mostly don't even know why we feel what we feel.

Don't smart people spend time on it? Professors, I met an ethics professor, how is it not rational?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective terms based on individual perspective. I personally don't find much use in these terms.

When deciding what course of action to take in any given situation, I assess the situation and determine possible outcomes of my choices of actions.

What do you assess by? What outcome do you want?

 

[sun rise]

If you had even all support info how would you go? Most love shared?

If I had that omniscience about a choice, yes, love shared for the most helpful outcome possible to all souls concerned.

 

[PureX]

What does it feel like to intuit it? I like your err, I'd like to be like that more

How do you know when to say no?

Intuition, to me, is just the brain working out the situation, and making decisions regarding it, faster than I can be consciously aware of it. So I let my brain do that. But because my brain can make mistakes in both perception and judgment, I think it's always a good idea, if time permits, to consciously question the validity of what the mind intuits to be the proper response. Often, when I do that I discover that the intuition was valid, and so I go with it. Sometimes, though, I find that in 'doulbe-thinking' it, I become more confused, and less sure of the proper response. So I have to take even more time to try and work it all out. And sometimes, too, I find that I just don't have enough valid information to work the problem out, and so I have to act on my hope for the best, and then see how it turns out.

Logic and ethics are probably the best guides. They help us recognize what responses are possible, and what the possible/probable results of each available course of action would be. So that we can then decide, ethically, which one is the better choice for us to make.

 

[syo]

Title question is enough

I go with the flow.

 

[Truth&Hope]

Most times it can be intuitive so long as I'm awake and sober. But sometimes it can be agonizing, too, when it seems like no one can win. And sometimes I just can't make a determination. Not enough information. I try to err on the side of kindness, forgiveness, support, and so on just because I know we all need these, as flawed and confused humans. But I also have to know my own limitations, and when to say "no" because humanity can be a bottomless pit of need.

Thank God perfection is not a requirement.

Well….for example, is it the truth or a lie? It cannot be both.

I consider, not necessarily in this order (although I have written these in their importance, least to most):

1) My subjective intention in doing the act. This is easy to change, if I have a bad one I can just change it to a good one.
2) The circumstances and consequences. The when, where, what will result, amount, and so on. The foreseen good consequences must be equal or greater to the bad, but there can be bad.
3) The nature of the act itself. This is unchanging and so is the most important thing to discern.

All three must be good for the act to be good, if even your intention is bad and the rest are good (such as with almsgiving so as to be praised for it) then you've done wrong to me. Yet even so different judgments can be made for different situations, and there can be multiple good options.

For some of those you linked my answer would be:

Runaway trolley, no pushing (act is murder).
Deliberate infection, no poisoning (act is murder). Perhaps I'd just not treat them, not sure.
Hostage ecologist, no torturing (act is torture, which I consider to be evil).
Life insurance, no murdering.
Lifeboat, I would not throw it. There is no reason to do so that I see.
Concentration, no torturing or killing.
Unfaithful wife, I would attempt to save her due to being bound by marriage.

These are interesting although there are many of them. Some of them cause me to have many questions about causality to have a good answer or any answer so I just skipped that. I need to study more, pray, fast, and so on.

You can learn more from the Scripture, Saints, and other sources of grace to become more just and discern better. Better persons can discern situations better than lesser persons.

Usually I do not have to break down an act like this though, as I know what I need to do, my life is not that complicated.

All the above is my opinion of course.

Wow! Nice answer!!

 

[Truth&Hope]

What do you assess by? What outcome do you want?[/QUOTE

Would you agree that love, hope, truth, light and life are all good or positive and fear/hate, despair, lies, darkness, and death are all bad or negative?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I use my conscience (internal guidance) to inform me of what feels right and wrong. Some use external guidelines, received moral codes. I'm sure that there are others who use neither, and don't think in terms of right or wrong. Anything they want is right to them.

Are there there possibilities? I can't think of any.

You probably also mean how do you choose your reaction in any in a situation in which you have a sense of right and wrong. If so, that comes from pure reason and an understanding of how the world works if time permits, or instinct if immediate action is required.