← All dilemmas
⚖️justice
Un attivista climatico danneggia un'opera d'arte per protestare. Testimone, lo denunci sapendo che rischia anni di carcere?
🌍 Join 1 people who already voted
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
No legal answer is the same as a moral answer here — both have to be argued. Choosing “Lo denuncio: nessuna causa giustifica distruggere patrimonio culturale comune” prioritises the strict rule; choosing “Taccio: l'urgenza climatica rende comprensibile una disobbedienza civile estrema” gives more weight to a context-aware exception.
Worth asking yourself
- Would you apply the same standard to yourself?
- Does context excuse the act, or just explain it?
More Justice Dilemmas
- 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?