By Linda Holmes, contributor
Dexter Morgan works as a blood-spatter analyst for the Miami police, but when he’s not doing that, he murders serial killers. He is, in fact, a serial killer himself – but only of other killers, and only of those against whom he believes he has strong evidence who do not feel remorse. These are people who, in many places, might be subject to the death penalty for their crimes, but have for whatever reason escaped punishment.
Is Dexter doing the right thing?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","What if you kill the wrong person?","","http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-morality-dexter.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "269", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
When CBS aired episodes of Dexter on broadcast television, partly to fill time left empty by the writers’ strike, the prevailing argument against showing it was that the show urged people to sympathize with a serial killer and root for him not to get caught. Dexter does follow a strict code that he’s adopted internally, but it certainly would be possible to judge him separately for his adherence to the code he’s chosen and for the validity of that code by any external standard. Can you admire someone for doing what he thinks is the right thing, even if you think it’s obviously not the right thing?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","'Prison Break': Aid an escape to save your girlfriend?","","http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060817/060817_prisonbreak_hmed_3p.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "209", "298", "", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
Michael Scofield has already broken his (unjustly imprisoned) brother out of jail once when he finds himself back in a Panamanian prison. He is visited by his brother Lincoln, who tells him that a shadowy conspiracy group has kidnapped both Lincoln’s son L.J. and Michael’s girlfriend Sara. Unless Michael agrees to help a prisoner affiliated with the group to escape, L.J. and Sara will be killed.
Should Michael break out the prisoner to save the people he loves?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","What the character decided","","http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051128/051128_prisonbreak_hmed_5p.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "271", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
Michael ultimately decided to help break the prisoner out, but while he worked at it, Lincoln tried to free the hostages. Unfortunately, his first attempt failed, and the criminals (it seemed) executed Sara to convince Lincoln to back off – while retaining L.J. as a hostage. Of course, this required Lincoln to decide whether to tell Michael that Sara was dead, thus potentially cutting into his motivation, and then Sara eventually turned out not to be dead anyway, but that’s all rather beside the point, isn’t it?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","'Pushing Daisies': Trade one life for another?","","http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-morality-daisies.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "175", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
Ned has a special gift, which is that he can bring people back from the dead with a touch. The rules, however, are that if he ever touches them again, they die permanently; and if he doesn’t touch them again within a minute and they’re still alive, then another person (or animal) dies nearby in their place. As a child, for instance, Ned revived his mother, and in her place, the father of his best friend Charlotte (“Chuck”) dropped dead. Much later, after Chuck was murdered, he brought her back to life at the expense of another person – though he can never touch her again, or she’ll die again.
If someone Ned is close to should die, can he bring the person back from the dead, even if someone else dies?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","It's tough not to save your girlfriend","","http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo/_new/081017-pushing-daisies-hmed.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "199", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
When Ned brought his mother back, he was a child and didn’t yet know about the trade-off where one person died for every person he revived. But when he brought Chuck back, he did know, and he let her live anyway, causing another nearby person to die. Ned has found a way to use his powers in a way he’s comfortable with, by reviving murder victims for one minute so they can offer clues to solving the mysteries of their own deaths. But the trades are still hard for him to justify.";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","'Private Practice': Children having children","","http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-morality-practice.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "219", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
Dr. Addison Montgomery works at a clinic where doctors have already agreed to perform an in vitro fertilization procedure for a 17-year-old girl who is married and is dying of cancer. Addison strongly objects to the procedure on the basis that the girl is very young, her husband is very young, and the child will be left without a mother. The other doctors argue that she’s a married woman who badly wants a child before she dies.
Should the clinic perform the procedure?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","The show chickens out","","http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-private-practice.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "199", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
The show, unsurprisingly, chickened out of the entire question by revealing that the patient’s young husband really didn’t want a baby once his wife was gone. In fact, it turned out that the girl didn’t even want a baby so much as she was simply afraid of death. That unfortunately prevented it from fully exploring the intriguing question of how much judgment a fertility doctor should exercise with regard to who does and does not get to have a child. It would have been a more interesting storyline if it straightforwardly addressed the ethics of the doctors’ response if the couple – young, but married – had genuinely both wanted the child.";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","'Survivor': Would you lie for a million dollars?","","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-morality-survivor.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "199", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
It’s a classic reality-show dilemma, played out a hundred ways, but probably the most famous formulation involves Lex and Rob, who had appeared on previous seasons of the show and become friends before they showed up for the All-Star season. Without covering every detail, Rob implied that if Lex helped Rob advance in the game, Rob would later do something to help Lex. Lex helped Rob, but then Rob went back on his word, which Lex considered immoral, but which Rob considered simply part of playing the game, no different from bluffing in poker.
Is it immoral or unethical to go back on your word within the playing of a strategy game?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","Just like bluffing in poker?","","http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040509/040509_survivor_group_hmed_8p.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "194", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
At first, it’s a pretty compelling argument to say, “We’re friends; you broke your word to me; ergo, you’re wrong.” But what about bluffing in poker? What is the significance of breaking your word when all that’s involved is game play? In the end, Rob made it to the final tribal council, but he lost (to Amber, the very girlfriend/ally he’d gotten Lex to help save) after being pummeled by a bunch of people he’d offended, including Lex. Lex’s indignant speech about selling out your integrity for “a stack of greenbacks” remains a classic among embarrassingly self-righteous displays of bad sportsmanship.";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","'Grey's Anatomy': Donate an organ to a stranger?","","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-morality-greys2.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "168", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
A hospital has arranged a multiple-party kidney transplant, in which Patient A brings Donor A (perhaps his friend, relative, or whatever), who isn’t a match for him, but is a match for Patient B, who brings Donor B, who is a match for Patient C, and Donor C is a match for Patient A, and so forth. Each donor’s motivation for participating relies on the fact that his or her related patient winds up getting a transplanted organ from someone in the group. But if anyone drops out, the entire web of surgeries falls apart (Donor A won’t donate anymore if Patient A isn’t getting a kidney anymore). One potential donor discovers that her husband, who is to receive a transplant, has been having an affair. She questions whether to participate.
Is the wife obligated to continue with her donation?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","The kindness of strangers","","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-greys-hmed.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "199", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
The wife did go ahead with the surgery, and six people got transplants as a result. Certainly, some people simply donate organs to strangers, but this woman had agreed to surgery (which carries at least some risks) based on her loyalty to her husband. She would not have been expected to participate were she a stranger; if she no longer wants to out of love for her husband, perhaps she is in the same position as a stranger. Fortunately, she decided to go forward after having it pointed out to her that she could think of the surgery as being for the benefit of the other five recipients, rather than for the benefit of her husband.";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","'Ugly Betty': Controversial cover could sell big","","http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/061020/061020_betty_hmed_4p.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "201", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
Mode magazine had already planned an issue with a “storm” theme on the cover when a devastating hurricane hit part of the country, and it became clear that it would be in poor taste to use the cover. One editor believed the cover should be pulled; the other believed that it didn’t matter, and that it would be good business to go ahead with the cover, which would inevitably get more attention than a typical issue.
Should the magazine pull the cover?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","Cover came before the hurricane","","http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-ugly-betty.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "199", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
Of course, it’s relevant here that the magazine didn’t come up with the cover to exploit the hurricane – the cover came first; the hurricane second. It’s also interesting to ponder the matter of why it becomes in poor taste to use a storm theme right after a hurricane, if it’s not in poor taste to use one ever, since there have certainly been plenty of hurricanes in history. ";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","'Earl': Is karma list self-centered?","","http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-morality-earl2.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "202", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
In this show, Earl attempts to reform himself by making a list of everyone he has wronged during his crooked life – a long list – and doing something for them. (For instance, he makes amends to a man to whom he sold a lemon car by trying to restore the man’s faith in humanity – which was destroyed by the original rip-off.)
Is it a legitimate form of rehabilitation for Earl to try to fix his karma by doing things for others he’s done something to in the past?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","Good deeds based on loss of a lottery ticket","","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051009/051009_earl_cantmiss_hmed.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "198", "284", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
On one hand, Earl is fully devoted to doing things for other people. On the other, he is doing it largely because he believes in karma, and he thinks that the bad things he’s done will otherwise come back to haunt him. In that sense, it’s completely self-absorbed. After all, what sent Earl down the road to making his list in the first place wasn’t a general feeling of guilt for the bad things he’d done; it was his belief that bad karma had cost him a winning lottery ticket.";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","'Ghost Whisperer': Granting wishes for the dead","","http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-morality-ghost.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "199", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
Melinda Gordon can communicate with the dead, or so she believes. She helps them to deliver a message or tend to their old business, which allows them to proceed to Heaven. In doing the bidding of the dead, of course, she is assuming the reliability of her own perceptions, which may cause upheaval and strife to loved ones and friends of a deceased person who (1) may not be interested in the wishes of the dead; or (2) may find it upsetting to be told that the dead person is chatting with a stranger about personal business.
Does Melinda have the right or the obligation to carry out what she believes are dead people’s wishes, when it involves intruding into the lives of their survivors?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","What if the dead have evil motives?","","http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-ghost-whisperer.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "220", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
In many cases, Melinda is righting some terrible wrong, protecting a living person from harm, or otherwise avoiding terrible danger. But the premise requires that we accept that she acts as a sort of proxy for the dead, which begs the question: do the dead have the right to a proxy? And how reliable is she? Aren’t her interpretations bound to get into the mix somewhere? How would she know if she was being manipulated by the dead? What if the dead person has evil motives?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","'Housewives': Send your own firebug kids to juvie?","","http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-housewives.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "199", "298", "", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
Lynette Scavo, a married mother of four, briefly flirted with a Rick, who worked at her family’s restaurant. After Lynette fired Rick for overstepping her personal boundaries, he set up a competing restaurant. When it burned down, Lynette’s husband was suspected, and then cleared, of being involved. Later, Lynette’s children – twins who were under ten years old – admitted that they started the fire because they feared that Lynette would go off with Rick.
Should Lynette have turned in her children to the authorities?";
MoralityQuiz[i++] = new Array("","Parents protect their own","","http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081210-housewives-two.standard.jpg","","", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "199", "298", "#000000", "", "", "", "");
MoralityQuiz[i-1].body = "
Lynette and her husband discussed the situation and decided to punish the boys but not turn them in. Lynette later realized that the boys had felt goaded into setting the fire by her husband’s daughter from another relationship, and she wound up directing more of her ire at the daughter. The question would have been more difficult if an innocent person had been languishing in jail for the crime, but is it Lynette’s moral obligation to give information regarding her young children to the police? Realistically, how many people actually would do that?"; // END editorial data