Moral Questions & Dilemmas

From that arrticle ^ this sounds more sensible:
"The group suggests that instead there should be a 'racially neutral vaccine allocation criteria' that would focus on 'geography, socioeconomic status, and housing density' but still work to help minorities."

It is not right that it is politicians and not doctors who are deciding what demographic is first in line for the vaccine.
Governor Cuomo from New York wants to put drug addicts ahead of the elderly.
Soon he will be ordering who will have to take it.

Suppose there was a political party with quite a lot of support which intended to do away with democracy and start a dictatorship. Should that party be allowed to campaign and stand candidates with the same freedom as any other party?

There is no place for a dictatorship in a democracy.  Our freedoms were hard won and need to be protected from an unchecked government. We owe that to our future generations.
Sadly the bigger government gets, the more corrupt and manipulative it becomes.
So no, I say the candidates should not be allowed to campaign but rather be cast out, along with their followers to the deepest depths of the communist country of their choice.

I have quite a lot of sympathy with your position there, but I lean towards honouring the ideal of democracy where everybody gets to participate and then the voters make their choices. So I think democracy should be allowed to extinguish itself if that's what the majority wants - on principle. Also, disallowing certain opinions would set a dangerous precedent and that's what some of the woke brigade would do now if they could.

If a dictatorship were to take control there would no longer be any freedoms or civil liberties for the average person. Next to go would be our human rights.
Who in their right mind would ever vote for that?
It is difficult for me to grasp the idea of allowing a democracy to dissolve based on principle.
It sounds so civilized, a good thing but in reality is actually very bad.

It reminds me of the parable of the frog in boiling water, that the changes leading up to a dictatorship will come on so gradually that they will not be noticed by most... until it is too late.

https://mygestaltherapy.com/trolley-problem-killing-one-person-to-save-five/  Quoting:

Imagine you are watching a trolley going down the tracks at full speed, running away straight towards five workers who are trapped in the middle. You are standing next to a switch that will redirect the trolley to a second track. But wait, there’s a problem. The second track has a worker too, although it is just one. You can either let the train go on and ignore it, watching five people get run over and doing nothing. Or sacrifice the worker who has no idea of what is happening. What do you do?

And just like that, I welcome you to the Trolley Problem, an ethical dilemma that was created back in the 60s by the philosopher Philippa Foot. This [became] popular because it puts us in a corner; there is no correct choice.

If we analyze the situation, it seems like it is impossible to solve. First, we don’t know anything about the five people. They could all be doctors with the potential to save a lot of people in the future. Another possibility is that the five individuals are criminals; if saved, they may engage in criminal activities, rob, harm, and maybe even kill someone. In reality, there’s not enough knowledge to make a solid decision, and even if we had it, something would still be missing. What if they are criminals but change their perspective and way of life because of the near-death experience? Or what if they are all doctors and change for the bad?

There are just too many variables. In the majority of cases, 90% of people will choose to take one life over five. The thing is that you can’t measure the value of life in terms of quantity. This is a discussion that French philosophers Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre spend lots of time trying to win during World War Two.

I am surprised that only 10% would do nothing and just watch what happens. I hate to say it but that is the group I would be in.

Sary wrote:I am surprised that only 10% would do nothing and just watch what happens. I hate to say it but that is the group I would be in.

I reckon probably more people than 10% would freeze and do nothing, but I think that's a morally sound option anyway - refusing to play God - and it's what I choose on paper.

I have a feeling that you would be one that would spring into action and try and do something. Maybe I would depending on the circumstance, and the people involved.
It’s hard to say how one would react in a life or death situation.