Disgustose sì, ma… forse è meglio evitare ogni spoiler.
Le propone Jonathan Haidt per testare la vostra maturità nei giudizi etici.
La prima:
“A family’s dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cooked it and ate it for dinner. Nobody saw them do this…”
Approvate, condannate o siete moralmente indifferenti al comportamento tenuto dalla famiglia?
La seconda:
“A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it…”
Approvate, condannate o siete moralmente indifferenti al comportamento dell’uomo?
La terza:
“A woman is cleaning out her closet, and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom…”
Approvate, condannate o siete moralmente indifferenti al comportamento della donna?
La quarta:
“Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it ok for them to make love?”
Approvate, condannate o siete moralmente indifferenti al comportamento dei due fratelli?
Attenzione perché c’è un trucco evidente che siamo sempre tentati di sorvolare.
Il trucco ve lo posso anche svelare ma per il dettaglio delle implicazioni devo rinviare al libro The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion di Jonathan Haidt
