← All dilemmas
🛑morality
Dopo un attacco mortale, i leader credono che una ritorsione possa fermare il prossimo, ma potrebbe uccidere civili. Dovrebbero colpire?
Vote to reveal how SplitVote voters split.
YOUR CHOICE
OR
Anonymous voting. No account required. Results update in real time.
Why this dilemma matters
There is no clean answer here — the dilemma forces a trade between two legitimate moral claims. Choosing “Sì. La deterrenza può prevenire violenze maggiori in futuro” prioritises a more principled outcome; choosing “No. Il rischio per i civili rende la ritorsione moralmente ingiustificabile” gives more weight to a more pragmatic outcome.
Worth asking yourself
- Which value should matter more here?
- Would you defend this choice to someone affected by it?
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.