← All dilemmas
⚖️morality
In un conflitto, una missione rischia di causare vittime civili nel territorio nemico, ma è l'unico modo per evacuare con successo le proprie truppe intrappolate. È etico procedere?
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
This is a right-vs-right question: every choice respects one value while sacrificing another. Choosing “Priorizzare la sicurezza dei propri soldati, accettando le possibili perdite civili come conseguenza inevitabile della guerra” prioritises the cleaner moral line; choosing “Rinunciare alla missione per evitare vittime innocenti, anche a costo di mettere a rischio i propri militari” gives more weight to the smaller real-world cost.
Worth asking yourself
- What cost are you more willing to accept?
- Which value should matter more here?
More Morality Dilemmas
- A runaway trolley is heading toward 5 people. You can pull a lever to divert it — but it will kill 1 person instead.
- You discover a cure for cancer, but it only works if you keep the formula secret — sharing it would destroy the compound's effectiveness forever.
- A pill erases all your painful memories — but also the lessons you learned from them. You become happier but more naive.
- Your child is dying and needs medicine you cannot afford. You could steal it. The store owner is not evil — just running a business.