Ethical Dilemmas: What Would You Actually Do?
Every ethical dilemma is a stress test for your values. Philosophers have constructed them for millennia — from Plato's question of whether you should return a borrowed weapon to a man who has gone mad, to the trolley problems that filled twentieth-century journals — precisely because they expose the moments when our moral instincts pull in opposite directions and no clean answer survives scrutiny. The discomfort you feel reading a dilemma is not a sign that you are thinking about it wrong; it is a sign that you are taking it seriously. What makes these thought experiments powerful is not that they give us answers, but that they force us to discover what we actually believe when the comfortable abstractions of everyday ethics fall away. Thousands of people have faced the same choices here — see how your instincts compare, cast your vote, and find out what your pattern of decisions reveals about your moral personality.
Vote on this dilemma
A runaway trolley is heading toward 5 people. You can pull a lever to divert it — but it will kill 1 person instead.
7 votes cast
Research background
The systematic study of ethical dilemmas as empirical tools was shaped decisively by Philippa Foot's 1967 paper introducing the trolley problem and Judith Jarvis Thomson's subsequent elaborations at MIT. Joshua Greene's dual-process theory, developed at Princeton and later Harvard, used fMRI evidence to argue that utilitarian and deontological responses arise from distinct neural systems — a finding that has generated both enthusiasm and sustained critique from philosophers including Fiery Cushman at Harvard's Moral Psychology Research Lab.
- The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect — Oxford Review — Philippa Foot (via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment — Science / Harvard University — Joshua Greene et al.
SplitVote is for entertainment and aggregate insight, not a scientific test.
Related dilemmas
You are a doctor. One healthy patient's organs could save the lives of 5 people dying in the next room. No one would ever know.
Vaccines are 99% effective and safe. Should they be legally mandatory for school attendance, even for parents with religious objections?
A lifeboat holds 8. There are 9 of you. Nobody volunteers. Someone proposes the eldest goes — they look at you and nod.
Your terminally ill parent is in unbearable pain and begs you to end their suffering. The doctors say weeks remain. No one will find out.
Related topics
No account required. Your vote is anonymous.