Justice Dilemmas

A student with a disability uses AI support during exams. Other students say it gives an unfair advantage. Should the school allow it?

An adaptive sports device lets disabled athletes beat non-disabled records. Should they compete in the same ranking?

A city caps rent increases to protect tenants, but small landlords say they will lose their retirement income. Should the cap stay?

A teacher posts class rankings to motivate effort. Top students improve, but struggling students feel humiliated. Should rankings be public?

One sibling cared for your parent for years while the others helped little. Should the inheritance be split equally?

A hostile alien species offers peace if humans stop expanding into its territory. The empire orders total extermination instead. Do you obey?

A competitive game sells real power boosts, but that money keeps the game free for millions. Should the studio allow pay-to-win?

A respected religious leader sees a government abusing power. Should they speak publicly, even if it divides their own community?

A country can protect a persecuted religious minority abroad only by damaging a crucial alliance. Should it act?

A faith charity can get emergency supplies only by accepting political conditions from donors. Should it accept?

A spiritual leader calls for a ceasefire while one side says stopping now rewards aggression. Was the call right?

A data center brings tax revenue, but residents may face higher electricity bills and more grid pressure. Should the city approve it?

A city bans large data centers, knowing the same projects may move to smaller towns with weaker rules. Is the ban still ethical?

A global fan vote is accused of being distorted by politics and campaigns. Should organizers publish more voting data even if it invites harassment?

A health agency keeps changing leaders, but each shake-up promises accountability after controversial decisions. What matters more?

A festival can give slots to famous directors who guarantee attention or unknown filmmakers who may fail completely. Which is fairer?

Bad weather makes commuting risky but not impossible. Should employers be required to allow remote work when official alerts are active?

Should archaeologists excavate a sacred site if it could rewrite history?

Should museums display newly found artifacts before ownership disputes are resolved?

Should historians use AI to reconstruct missing ancient texts?

Should fragile ruins be closed to tourists to preserve them?

Should green technologies be slowed until mineral supply chains meet human-rights standards?

Should countries stockpile critical minerals even if prices rise for poorer nations?

Should clean-energy mining projects proceed if local Indigenous communities refuse consent?

Should governments publish a public changelog for every removed dataset?

Should archived public datasets be admissible when official sites remove the originals?

Should deleting public health or climate data require an independent review?

Should volunteers be allowed to mirror public datasets before governments remove them?

Should mining companies share long-term profits directly with affected communities?

A prosecutor has real proof a serial fraudster is guilty, but it's inadmissible. A deepfake confession exists that would guarantee conviction. Do you use it?

Transit workers strike for fair wages, leaving thousands unable to reach hospitals or jobs. Should the government force them back to work?

A viral video strips a private person of their anonymity before any investigation. Should platforms remove it to protect them, or keep it up in the name of public transparency?

A hospital triage algorithm saves 23% more lives overall, but systematically deprioritizes elderly patients. Do you deploy it?

Your late mentor is being honored publicly, but you know they quietly mistreated several people who still carry that wound. Do you speak?

Your remorseful brother confessed a past assault to you. His therapist says he may reoffend. Do you act?

You must cut one role. Same salary, same team. One person outperforms but has no dependents. The other struggles but supports three kids. Who goes?

A wealthy patient bypassed the waiting list through connections. They're now in critical condition in front of you. Do you treat them first?

A family in shared housing can't pay rent or maintain shared spaces, risking the building for 11 others. Do you evict them?

A zero-tolerance attendance rule costs a student their scholarship — their absence was to donate bone marrow to a sibling. Do you enforce it?

Your jury unanimously agrees on a verdict you believe is wrong. Speaking up means a mistrial. Do you stay silent or break ranks?

A carbon quota system lets the wealthy buy unused credits from the poor. Is trading personal carbon limits just or exploitative?

A steel town's only employer pollutes heavily but employs 80% of residents. Should the government shut it down or keep it running?

A climate activist you admire confesses they destroyed construction equipment at a fossil fuel site. Do you turn them in?

A meat tax would cut emissions but raise food costs most for low-income families. Should it be implemented?

A pipeline set to destroy a protected wetland is halted only by sabotage. You know who did it. Do you report them?

You run admissions at a top university. Removing legacy preference fills more seats with high-achievers but cuts vital donor funding. Do you end it?

A chronic bully shows genuine remorse and asks for one last chance. Expelling them protects victims — but ruins their future. What do you do?

A student worked harder than anyone but still failed. Another barely tried and aced it. Both can only pass one. Who deserves it?

A convicted fraudster who stole from charities applies for a job at your nonprofit. They have a flawless record for 8 years. Do you hire them?

A city has one remaining affordable housing unit. A longtime resident and a newly arrived migrant both urgently need it. Who should get priority?

You're the only juror who speaks the defendant's language fluently. Refusing duty means a mistrial. Do you serve despite a personal conflict of interest?

You can unmask an anonymous troll who harassed hundreds online — but doing so also exposes their unrelated mental health history. Do you reveal them?

You submit AI-written homework and ace the class. Your struggling classmate gets expelled for the same thing. Do you confess?

You built an AI art tool trained on living artists' work without consent. It's now funding art schools for underprivileged kids. Do you shut it down?

A supreme military commander discovers that a long-standing treaty — signed under their predecessor's authority — was built on falsified intelligence that harmed a civilian population. Should they publicly void the treaty and accept the geopolitical chaos that follows, or uphold it in silence to preserve a fragile regional peace that millions depend on?

Your closest friend confesses they committed a serious violent crime years ago, have since rebuilt their life completely, and are now a pillar of their community — but the victim's family never received justice. Do you report them, knowing it will destroy everything they've become, or stay silent, knowing someone else carries an unhealed wound because of them?

If abolishing prisons would demonstrably reduce systemic harm and racial injustice for millions, but statistically guarantee that a small number of violent individuals would reoffend without containment, should abolition still be pursued? Is accepting predictable harm to a few a legitimate price for systemic justice for many?

A pandemic has left one vaccine dose in the region. A policy must be set immediately: do you establish a protocol that prioritizes the young and healthy — maximizing years of life saved — or the elderly and vulnerable, who face near-certain death without it?

A person committed a serious crime at age 15, has since built a life of genuine accountability and service, and the victim's family has only now discovered their identity decades later. Should the statute of limitations be waived to prosecute them, or should their sustained transformation be treated as a form of justice in itself?

Your sibling caused a car accident while speeding and fled the scene, leaving the injured victim behind — they beg you to be their alibi. Do you cover for them, knowing the victim may struggle to get justice without a witness?

Is it ethical to offer payment to homeless people for participating in medical trials, given their vulnerability and need for immediate financial support?

You are on a parole board deciding the fate of a reformed murderer. The victim's family insists justice requires full punishment, while all experts confirm the offender's remorse and rehabilitation.

When credible intelligence suggests a mass-casualty attack is imminent, should authorities be permitted to breach encrypted personal devices without consent?

After decades in prison, a murderer has demonstrated profound remorse and a complete transformation, but the victims' families still live with their grief. Should the justice system prioritize the inmate's proven rehabilitation or the victims' need for a sense of finality and punishment?

If a convicted murderer has demonstrably reformed and offers genuine remorse, should their prison sentence be shortened to acknowledge their rehabilitation, or must the original sentence stand as an unwavering measure of justice for the victim?

Is offering financial incentives to homeless individuals for medical trial participation a just way to provide them with income and access to healthcare, or does it exploit their vulnerability by leveraging desperation for potentially risky research?

A new tax would halve the income of the top 1% and double the income of the bottom 20%. The total wealth in society stays the same.

An AI sentencing tool is more consistent than human judges across similar cases, but cannot explain its reasoning. Should it be used?

You are a juror. Every piece of evidence says guilty — but your gut tells you the defendant is innocent. The jury must be unanimous.

DNA evidence exonerates an innocent person after 25 years on death row. The real killer is 85, frail, and dying. Do they go to prison?

Someone who destroyed your life 10 years ago is now a changed, successful person helping their community. They never apologized.