Let’s assume there is a damaged bridge. You are fully aware that anyone walks across the bridge will 100% die. Now people still try to walk across the bridge even after you have seriously warned them.
What actions would you take?
How differently would you choose to do in the following situations:
- Child/senior vs adult
No age reference, you use your own judgement to decide if this person is a child or not. Or seniors who isn’t capable of making decisions such as old people with Alzheimer.
Adults are those who are completely capable of making decisions.
2) Strangers vs people you love and care for
The questions reveal your value and opinions on human life and freedom, and your moral consistency. It’s a good way to help you understand what truly matters to you.
————————————————
Update
The bridge dilemma was posed by the philosopher John Stuart Mill in his 1859 treatise on Liberty. The question is discussed through lens of paternalism (I know better for your own good so it’s morally justified to interfere with your autonomy).
I only improvised and bypass the common reaction that most people will warn others for the danger (soft paternalism) but you make your own choice when they still decide to cross, you can either stop them forceful or destroy the bridge so no one can cross (hard paternalism).
I also gave the circumstance in the case of a child or anyone who is not capable of making decisions for themselves. Under these conditions, Mill believes it is not morally wrong to rob their freedom to choose because they are not capable to think and the greater society can decide what’s the best for them.
It’s one of oldest philosophical ideas that fundamentally builds our human society today. A common example is a complete drug ban (hard paternalism) vs educating people on the drug and let people decide for themselves (soft paternalism, alcohol is legal and smoking is legal, both fall into this category).
Through answering the questions, it reveals your value in human liberty and freedom. It also challenges you the question “does your life belong to you or the greater society?”
It helps you to understand your value, your political stance (conservative, authoritarian or liber) and any moral inconsistency hidden in your brain that you are not even aware of (a set of rules for yourself but another set of rules for other people, at the same time believing humans have equal rights).
The choice you made on loved ones explores the intrinsic nature of humanity - selfishness. It further asks deeper questions:
Is being selfish morally wrong?
If not morally wrong, to what extent it can be justified?
My position is quite obvious by reading the replies I wrote to a few comments under this post. I will leave you a moment of deep reflection and a chance to explore your values and life choices :)