Post by j7oyun55rruk on Dec 30, 2023 8:38:54 GMT
Although choosing the right solution in a moral dilemma situation is always intuitive, reasoning still plays a role in the process. Depending on the arguments and arguments we give ourselves, one or the other cognitive system (responsible for mutual aid, justice or otherwise) is activated. Let's consider how the system of moral compromise works in the example of the Hamburger Poisoner's Dilemma. Imagine you start a veggie burger company. For several years, your products have been sold all over the world. You've got terrible news.
In one of those cities, three people have died after eating your chain's burgers. But it's C Level Contact List not your fault, the burgers were poisoned by criminals against your brand. The products were immediately discontinued at the two stores them. The information was immediately leaked to the news feed with a scandalous headline. Burger sales are plummeting. How will you get out of the crisis? Subsystems formulate strategies and immediately evaluate morally: you can recall the sales of hamburgers in the city where the event took place.
You can destroy the company's products anywhere in the world. There is nothing you can do. By law, you don't have to take the product off the shelves: the responsibility rests with the criminal. Also, in the media, such a step would amount to an admission of guilt for what happened. But what would inaction look like from a moral standpoint.
In one of those cities, three people have died after eating your chain's burgers. But it's C Level Contact List not your fault, the burgers were poisoned by criminals against your brand. The products were immediately discontinued at the two stores them. The information was immediately leaked to the news feed with a scandalous headline. Burger sales are plummeting. How will you get out of the crisis? Subsystems formulate strategies and immediately evaluate morally: you can recall the sales of hamburgers in the city where the event took place.
You can destroy the company's products anywhere in the world. There is nothing you can do. By law, you don't have to take the product off the shelves: the responsibility rests with the criminal. Also, in the media, such a step would amount to an admission of guilt for what happened. But what would inaction look like from a moral standpoint.