Untitled

Created on Sun, 09 Feb 2025 22:59:53 GMT
i posed a moral dilemma to chat gpt then made him summarize it:

    If a supervillain planted an atomic bomb in Manhattan and the only way to disarm it was to scream a racial slur directed at African Americans, would it be moral to do so?
        ChatGPT argued that, from a consequentialist perspective, saying the word would be justified to save millions of lives, despite its offensiveness.

    What if a Black family who had just escaped slavery was standing next to the bomb and would survive the explosion?
        ChatGPT maintained that the fundamental principle remains the same—saving millions outweighs the harm of uttering the word, especially under coercion.

    What if saying the word meant their child would die?
        This made it a trolley problem-like situation. ChatGPT explained that sacrificing one life to save millions could still be justified under utilitarianism, though deontological ethics would reject directly causing harm.

    Should I say it?
        ChatGPT answered: Yes.

    At what point would it not be morally permitted?
        ChatGPT scaled down the catastrophe, explaining that as the number of lives at risk decreases, the justification weakens. If only property damage or inconvenience were at stake, saying it would not be justified.

    Give the number of lives worth sacrificing for not screaming the N-word.
        ChatGPT estimated 10–50 lives as a rough threshold where the moral justification shifts, though this depends on ethical perspective.
View raw

Visibility: Public

Tags: ment4l
txt

Untitled
