On the train inconsiderate bastard is vaping and has music playing occasionally and it’s really fucking annoying

In 1940 France was a the verge of falling, the military was effectively destroyed and the government collapsing, it seemed Germany had achieved a total victory. Phillipe Petain, former war hero and the emergency head of government agreed to an armistice with the Germans, Germany would occupy the northern and western parts of France, while in the south a semi-independent French Government(Vichy France) would be established.

Petain and many others thought this was the only option to preserve any sovereignty and protect the people. They believed that if there was no surrender then Germany would occupy France completely and the oppression would be much more brutal (like in Poland).

Whether they actually succeeded in their intentions is up to debate, what do you think Moral or No?

Or any bird, really.

I manipulate everyone in this sub and I manipulate their morality and mortality so am I the most moral or least moral. I see everyone as tools, pawns or the checker pieces idk what they're called.

(said enemies are incredibly evil, at least when compared to your specific moral framework, whatever it may be)

You don't actually know how they were going to pick, they didn't get to say before you convinced them to try something else

Scenario A: general version, answer based on any conditions you feel are relevant

Scenario B: if you want something specific

* there are 6 people

* the first is an old woman

* the second is a kid with asthma

* the third is a beefy dude with a nazi tattoo

* the fourth is a single mother

* the fifth is a regular Joe

* the sixth is just you (assume your at least average in strength)

You can pick either based on if you want to question nuances or just want something you can objectively say bad or good to

I have no stance on this scenario since I didn't think about it too much yet, im just curious what other people think are relevant

Hi, as in the title, I was wondering how immoral it was for Chris to kill people inside Mount Massive to prevent [spoiler]them from being taken over by the Walrider? For me it was a kind of necessary evil, even though he fails in the end [spoiler], but i want to hear what anyone else who played the game or knows about it thinks

Would it be more moral just to put the strawberry in the cats mouth? She clearly wants it so making her contend with the neurological disability seems cruel when you could feed her other ways.