"What would you do if you had super strength? Break open a bank to grab some fast cash or would you lift a bus to save some nuns going off the bridge?"
Okay...let me just make this perfectly clear - if the test with questions and such was set up something like THIS then its results were seriously bogus. If you give people such extreme alternatives, then you will get very skewered results.
Power very rarely corrupts in this kind of absolutist ways, which is precisely why tests based around this kind of mentality have never struck me as authentic in any way, past trying to justify a philosophy or belief (in this case apparently Plato's). It's the ole Light/Dark side foolish belief of everything being good or evil and screw all the relativists, for that brings doubt and doubt is the enemy of faith! REPENT THOU SINNERS!!!
A much better set of questions would gauge the varying degrees of corruption behind power. For example...
Do you save some nuns going off the bridge no matter what?
What if you knew that some of them were less 'good' than they pretended they were to others?
What if all of them were corrupt?
What if they were more than just corrupt, but one of them also happened to indulge in pedophilia while the others kept to their vows of silence rather than exposing her?
Would you save them, even in the event that you knew *all* of them had taken part in it?
That kind of questionare is FAR more morally ambiguous and does not give you easy answers onto which people can latch onto. It helps because it also imposes a mock feeling of social restraints and actual context, in spite of your imaginary power. Meaning, yeah sure...lots of people say they would rob a bank with superpowers. But would they do it after inadvertently injuring someone there? How about maiming them for life? Would they rob a bank if they had to look someone in the eye while killing them to get the money? I get the feeling that few of these anonymous supervillans would have the guts to do something like that for just plain old cash. It takes great personal strength of will to live with yourself after doing something like that.
All of this kind of shit always gets ignored by these moronic tests that always try to prove how 'People are generally baaaaaaaaaaaaaad!', wether it's for the purposes of accepting a religion, for the purposes of a philosopher with a somewhat over-inflated view of himself or just good ole-fashioned flimsy justification of oppresive institutions that are 'a necessary evil to keep the raging fury of humanity in check.' *goes into Palpatine mode* "For a safe...and SECURE...society!" All of these motives are about as valid as the original assertion I think. They aren't at all. It's just a shame people can't be bothered to look at things a bit more in-depth and holistically and realize this.
Okay...let me just make this perfectly clear - if the test with questions and such was set up something like THIS then its results were seriously bogus. If you give people such extreme alternatives, then you will get very skewered results.
Power very rarely corrupts in this kind of absolutist ways, which is precisely why tests based around this kind of mentality have never struck me as authentic in any way, past trying to justify a philosophy or belief (in this case apparently Plato's). It's the ole Light/Dark side foolish belief of everything being good or evil and screw all the relativists, for that brings doubt and doubt is the enemy of faith! REPENT THOU SINNERS!!!
A much better set of questions would gauge the varying degrees of corruption behind power. For example...
Do you save some nuns going off the bridge no matter what?
What if you knew that some of them were less 'good' than they pretended they were to others?
What if all of them were corrupt?
What if they were more than just corrupt, but one of them also happened to indulge in pedophilia while the others kept to their vows of silence rather than exposing her?
Would you save them, even in the event that you knew *all* of them had taken part in it?
That kind of questionare is FAR more morally ambiguous and does not give you easy answers onto which people can latch onto. It helps because it also imposes a mock feeling of social restraints and actual context, in spite of your imaginary power. Meaning, yeah sure...lots of people say they would rob a bank with superpowers. But would they do it after inadvertently injuring someone there? How about maiming them for life? Would they rob a bank if they had to look someone in the eye while killing them to get the money? I get the feeling that few of these anonymous supervillans would have the guts to do something like that for just plain old cash. It takes great personal strength of will to live with yourself after doing something like that.
All of this kind of shit always gets ignored by these moronic tests that always try to prove how 'People are generally baaaaaaaaaaaaaad!', wether it's for the purposes of accepting a religion, for the purposes of a philosopher with a somewhat over-inflated view of himself or just good ole-fashioned flimsy justification of oppresive institutions that are 'a necessary evil to keep the raging fury of humanity in check.' *goes into Palpatine mode* "For a safe...and SECURE...society!" All of these motives are about as valid as the original assertion I think. They aren't at all. It's just a shame people can't be bothered to look at things a bit more in-depth and holistically and realize this.
