← All dilemmas
⚖️justice
Sosterresti una quarantena rigida se i lavoratori a ore perdessero reddito?
🌍 Join 2 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 “Sostieni la quarantena, ma pretendi aiuti urgenti per chi perde reddito” prioritises the strict rule; choosing “Rifiuta regole rigide finche il reddito non e protetto” gives more weight to a context-aware exception.
Worth asking yourself
- Who is the rule protecting, and who is paying for it?
- Is mercy a kind of justice here, or its opposite?
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?