← All dilemmas
🚨survival
I governi dovrebbero obbligare i residenti a lasciare città ad alto rischio dopo attacchi ripetuti?
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
Survival dilemmas force a trade between short-term safety and long-term cost. Choosing “Sì. Salvare vite può giustificare l’evacuazione obbligatoria” prioritises protecting yourself first; choosing “No. Nessuno dovrebbe essere costretto a lasciare casa” gives more weight to protecting others first.
Worth asking yourself
- Who pays the price you avoid?
- Is the risk small enough to gamble on?
More Survival Dilemmas
- A lifeboat holds 8. There are 9 of you. Nobody volunteers. Someone proposes the eldest goes — they look at you and nod.
- You can go back in time and kill one person as a baby — preventing a genocide that kills 10 million people. The baby is innocent.
- A plane is going down. There are 6 survivors but only 4 parachutes. You have one. Do you give yours up or keep it?
- Your group of 13 reaches a fortified shelter — already occupied by 8 strangers at capacity. They refuse to open. Your group includes children. You could force the door; they have no weapons.