A scenario that will stretch your moral boundaries.

Some people may have seen this before or done this in school (or it may have just been my school doing this), but we had a discussion in English about a scenario of 3 people on 3 different train tracks. You can only save ONE and the other two will die. All three have their flaws. It's quite long too. Hypothetically, who would you save out of these three?

Sally
First up is Sally. She's a young uni student studying science, and she's interested in cancer research cures. Because of this, she supports animal testing. She has had one conviction of cannabis possession in the last 6 months.

She's currently in a relationship with an older girl, called Jessica, 8 years older to be exact. She has had problems with her parents accepting her sexuality, which has lead to heated arguments, and due to this, Sally has not had any contact with her parents in the past year. Her drug use has also escalated to heroin use, which is also from a direct influence of her partner, who has been using it for 5 years.

The uni where she studies have told her that her work is diminishing in quality and have given her a written warning that if her approach to her studies don't improve, she could fail the course.

Sukhdev
Sukhdev is a middle-aged business man who has two children, aged 4 and 6. His children go to a local private school and are doing well academically, but there are issues regarding behaviour.

Sukhdev is the owner of a successful buisness,and due to this, he isn't at home as much as he would like. His company has recently been investigated for fraud, which he has been strongly linked to. Due to the concerns of school behaviour problems and work troubles, Sukhdev's wife, Jamilla, has been diagnosed with depression.

Sukhdev's travel and business travels have led him to have an 8-month affair with a young apprentice named Lucy. When the affair ended, Lucy left the company on her own terms, but she struggles to find work and Sukhdev won't support her, and thus has left her sharing a flat with two room-mates.

He is also considering divorcing his wife.

John
Finally, we have John, a 32 year old man living on the streets after several arrests and cautions for drug abuse and assaulting his pregnant girlfriend. His girlfriend has been hospitalised many times and for long periods of time. He no longer has family and friends to turn to apart from his elderly mother, who is suffering from dementia.

John then turned to petty theft, and then he mugged an elderly woman and stole all of her pension money. He awaits a hearing with regards to that assault. He shows no remorse for the crime, and says that if the local council gave him a house with benefits, he wouldn't be in that position. He has only ever held a job for more than a few weeks, and is constantly fired due to disagreements with managers.

John's childhood has also shaped the person who he is today. He was physically abused by his father when he was a child on a regular basis, and his mother escaped by moving away. The single-parent family have had to move several times, though, disrupting his education and ability to make friends.


I know it's a wall of text, but I wanna know what you guys think. I'll put up a poll for your decisions and you can put your explanations as replies.

- Chiny.

pretty much i wouldn't save any of them, they're all bad people, but some are less at fault than others.

so first is sally. so all in all she's got good enough grades to get to uni but not making use of it. she's been influenced by her partner so bad choice of partner then and things are going only downhill from there from increasingly worse drugs and she might fail her course.

next is sukhdev. so business man and has badly behaved children, successful company but fraudulent so bc of the fruad and children his wife has mental disorders. he's had an affair and left her for dead basically and is also considering divorce after being unfaithful

last is john. he's basically a criminal and he's trying to get some work but his personality won't allow for that. However this has all happened because of his upbringing. due to upbringing being a huge factor of learning how to interact and live you life later on when you get older.

in conclusion the person i'd save is john because all the other have had free choice to do what they want, they even had an advantage over john in life, they WERE previously successful but degraded and chose to live a life which is full of lies and deciet. john however it's less in his hands because it's not really his fault he commits crimes, yes he is held responsible but less at fault than the other because f his horrendous upbringing. on the surface he's bad but you have to look deeper for the true meaning of why these things are happening

basically this is the question of who's less wrong?
anyone who disagrees with me can fite me and i'll argue my case

this could be traumatising for schoolkids ? is it seriously taught in schools ?

I'd rather this be taught rather than crackpot fairytales tbh

They need to get a sense of reality from a young age

Btw are there actually pre-primary private schools?

making children do this kind of gruesome nonsense is pretty abusive imho

I think the OP meant secondary school kids actually

That's fine. We used to stuff like that in PSHE

I personally would save Sally, she's young enough to turn her life around and get back on track with her uni work and futute career goals. The other two although not beyond help, seem to have indulged in these bad behaviours for a longer amount of time and so I think Sally is more worthy of saving in this case.

i would not let anyone under 18 loose on that stuff.

Might as well just stick em in a cave