Dtb Radio

I think my moral compass is perfectly intact. I don't condone anything Dave did. I also don't condone allowing knowledge to Fade Into Obscurity. Fortunately Dave doesn't have any knowledge worth salvaging and passing on to Future Generations so this doesn't even apply in this particular situation.

You should look up moral dilemmas and ask yourself what you would do in each of these circumstances.

The Overcrowded Lifeboat



In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

 

Here's another good moral dilemma


Your family is vacationing alone on a private stretch of beach with no lifeguard. Your daughter and your niece, both 7, are best friends and eager to get into the water. You caution them to wait until the water calms some, but they defy you and sneak in anyway. You soon hear screams of distress and find them both caught in a strong current. You are the only swimmer strong enough to save them, but you can only save one at a time. Your niece is a very poor swimmer and likely won't make it much longer. Your daughter is a stronger swimmer, but only has a 50% chance of holding on long enough for you to come back for her. Who do you save first?

Save your daughter first; you know that your niece will probably die, but you can’t bear to lose your child.
Or
Save your niece first and hope that your daughter can hold on long enough for you to come back for her.

 

I agree with this completely but I think you fail to see the hypothetical moral dilemma that I posed. If he was the only technician capable of doing the work that he does anywhere in the world and your best friend decided to take up the hobby and ask you for your advice about where to go for a repair, do you risk losing your friendship by keeping that information Secret
Simply to spite Dave and punish him for what he did even though your friend knows that you know the answer to his question?

 

I never thought about it that way. It sounds awful when you word it that way. As a parent my first responsibility is protecting my kids.
Passing knowledge on to Future Generations is also a huge responsibility I take quite seriously.
Helping people figure out the solutions to their problems is also something I take quite seriously.
If you had a problem that only a pedophile had the answer to it creates quite a dilemma.