Ethical dilemma: Who should you believe? - Alex Worsnip

Puzzle through the ethical dilemma of a spouse accused of murder and decide: do you believe your spouse or the evidence?
--
You’re sitting on the couch, when you hear a knock on the door. The police have arrived to arrest your spouse- for murder. This accusation comes as a total shock, but their fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. Your spouse insists they’re innocent. Should you believe your spouse, even though the evidence against them looks damning? Alex Worsnip takes a look at this classic ethical dilemma.
Lesson by Alex Worsnip, directed by Emily Howells and Aaron Brady.
This video was produced in collaboration with the Parr Center for Ethics, housed within the renowned Philosophy Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Parr Center is committed to integrating abstract work in ethical theory with the informed discussion of practical ethical issues, and prides itself on the development of innovative and inclusive approaches to moral and civic education.
Support Our Non-Profit Mission
----------------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: bit.ly/TEDEdPat...
Check out our merch: bit.ly/TEDEDShop
----------------------------------------------
Connect With Us
----------------------------------------------
Sign up for our newsletter: bit.ly/TEDEdNew...
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/TEDEdFac...
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/TEDEdTwi...
Peep us on Instagram: bit.ly/TEDEdIns...
----------------------------------------------
Keep Learning
----------------------------------------------
View full lesson: ed.ted.com/les...
Dig deeper with additional resources: ed.ted.com/les...
Animator's website: www.emilyhowel...
----------------------------------------------
Thank you so much to our patrons for your support! Without you this video would not be possible! Phyllis Dubrow, Ophelia Gibson Best, Paul Schneider, Joichiro Yamada, Henrique Cassús, Lyn-z Schulte, Elaine Fitzpatrick, Karthik Cherala, Clarence E. Harper Jr., Vignan Velivela, Ana Maria, Exal Enrique Cisneros Tuch, Tejas Dc, Khalifa Alhulail, Martin Stephen, Dan Paterniti, Jose Henrique Leopoldo e Silva, Elnathan Joshua Bangayan, Jayant Sahewal, Mandeep Singh, Abhijit Kiran Valluri, Kris Siverhus, Devin Harris, Pavel Zalevskiy, Karen Goepen-Wee, Filip Dabrowski, Barbara Smalley, Megan Douglas, Tim Leistikow, Ka-Hei Law, Hiroshi Uchiyama, Mark Morris, Misaki Sato, EdoKun, Boytsov Ilya, SookKwan Loong, Bev Millar, Lex Azevedo, Noa Shore, Michael Aquilina, Jason A Saslow, Dawn Jordan, Prasanth Mathialagan, Samuel Doerle, David Rosario, Dominik Kugelmann - they-them, Siamak H, Ryohky Araya, Mayank Kaul and Christophe Dessalles.

[@PinesmokeArt]

I think the best thing to do is ask them for an explanation of the evidence against them. If they can’t give a good answer, they’re probably guilty. Also, trusting your spouse because you know them as a good person doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re ignoring the evidence, because you’re experience with them IS a form of evidence, that you need to weigh against the police’s evidence.

[@aleka..]

Asking for explanation would be useful, but for our own impression of them- not so fast... our evidence is anecdotal. And we're the one our partner *if terrible to other people* still may want to be good to. If for nothing else but for them to have someone who acknowledges them as a good person. (Everyone likes to think we are) Also, bigotries make people disregarded humanity/right to live of other people, but respect "their own" so their family and friends' impressions are not reliable.

[@WhitneyDahlin]

@@aleka.. YES ❤ I would believe my husband is innocent no matter what the evidence against him is. because I know my husband and I love my husband and I know he wouldnt just do something like that. I'm not going to immediately make assumptions and jump to the worst case scenario and assume the worst of my husband. My husband deserves the benefit of the doubt regardless of what the evidence is and I will believe he is innocent until he tells me otherwise. If you wouldn't give your spouse the benefit of the doubt and you would immediately jump to assuming they're guilty, you don't really love them and you definitely shouldn't be in a relationship with them. Your spouse who you choose to marry deserves the benefit of the doubt regardless of what the circumstances are. Also a famous criminal defense attorney was asked how he can defend someone he believes is guilty. and he always tells the story about how when he first started practicing law his job was to defend this guy and he 100% believe this guy was guilty. because he believed this guy was guilty he didn't give him the best defense that he could have given him. and that guy ended up being convicted. a few years later it comes out that that guy truly was innocent and he spent five years in prison as an innocent man. and that criminal defense attorney blames himself. he said from that day forward he always believes his client is innocent because it is his job to give his client the best defense they can possibly get regardless of what the evidence is. that is how our justice system is set up and in order for our justice system to work correctly every single person deserves the best defense possible.

[@PinesmokeArt]

@@aleka.. You’re right, but if I was put in that situation I don’t think I’d be able to look past my own experience. Obviously their guilt in regards to the law should be determined by an objective viewpoint. I don’t think there’s any shame in being deceived by someone that you love.

[@bobwilson679]

I honestly have a different way of looking at it: Even if all of the evidence points towards them committing a murder, if my spouse is a good person, there must have been a good reason. It was an accident, or it was self-defense, or it was a moment of passion/extreme anger/inebriation.

[@mariubjallakata3685]

I think if they DO have an answer, against the evidence, then they COULD BE GUILTY, because, if they committed a crime, surely would think of an excuse....

[@radurte]

If anyone wants to get right inside the mind of someone in this very situation, I highly recommend reading "The Phantom Prince" by Elizabeth Kendall. She was Ted Bundy's girlfriend, and the first one to tip the police about him, but even though she did that she believed in his innocence for most of his trial. She lived this dilemma for years, and it's all very detailed in her memoir.

[@dinodanaa]

That sounds really interesting but do you know where to get it?

[@noctilucera7585]

@@dinodanaa I just googled for a second and found it on amazon and local vendors...doesnt seem to be hard to come by

[@Jocw27]

on the same subject, a good marriage by Stephen King from the "full dark, no stars" novel collection

[@Wally_Darling1960]

@@dinodanaa since it's a good read I'm guessing most places

[@ChroniclerV]

I'm actually concerned about the crime scene. Why did the accused suspect just leave his/her finger prints behind and all over the murder weapon and room, if he/she did commit the murder?

[@miwiarts]

Objection! You Honour, the fingerprints were only on the blade. My client could not have stabbed the victim by holding the blade like that!

[@oharamouche8476]

Hold it! The defendant could have easily stabbed the victim with the knife if they had been wearing some sort of gloves on their hands, but then accidentally grabbed the knife by the blade AFTER they had taken the gloves off!

[@xyike3753]

But does any of the evidence indicate the criminal wearing gloves during the murder?

[@oharamouche8476]

@@xyike3753 it wouldn't have to necessarily BE gloves, just any sort of covering cloth

[@blueheart9873]

I like where this is going

[@aknifeinthedark6878]

Why would he hold the knife by the blade if he had some type of glove... ;-)

[@dorkarama3135]

My wife believed me! She's no longer alive...I mean around...She's no longer around! Phew!

[@remus6846]

"THE FBI WANTS TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION"

[@mallubro2853]

"The FBI wants to know your location"

[@nelia931]

Lol 😄

[@elenaspector5008]

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

[@kentguiller]

Oh phew, for a second there I thought you did something horrible to your wife.

[@ludoviajante]

I wonder if the creators of this channel understand how much they contribute to educating people around the world. These videos are amazing. Much love from Brazil!

[@mrsprite399]

Definitely yes

[@rudypinheiro4992]

Bom ver brasileiros por aqui

[@leocremonezi]

Esse canal é incrível 👏🏻

[@husky6256]

LUDINHO VC POR AQ!!

[@merlimmillenium1917]

E eu me pergunto se você sabe o quanto você contribui com o seu canal!! Adoro seu conteúdo, grande abraço!

[@ilzamerson5242]

Thinking about it ethically, is not because someone killed that is gonna necessarily make that person a bad character. It all depends on the reasons why that occurred. So, answering the question "could you love a murderer", it all depends on the reasons of what happened.

[@bilzebug]

Yeah i mean, murder is illegal. But not necessarily wrong, depending on who got murdered. However if the person were lying to me about it, that is unforgivable.

[@immortal3018]

I agree, but I’m pretty sure this video assumes the spouse is accused of a grisly murder in cold blood.

[@manuelka15]

@@bilzebug totally agree with bilzebug here. In this hypothetical scenario, I would find it more troubling that my spouse is lying to me than if they killed someone (considering it was true). I could thing they have their motives. But if they think I won't agree with their motives, then probably they don't deserve my love. It could also be the case that they are innocent. It's really a tricky scenario 🤔

[@bobwilson679]

EXACTLY

[@vanivanov9571]

Murder: Justifiable and not necessarily wrong. Lying: Totally unjustifiable deal breaker! Notably, what you say in front of police can be used against you in a court of law; so saying "the guy totally deserved it, you got to believe me," would show your spouse is honest to a fault.

[@jackielinde7568]

As an evidentialist, don't you have a duty to scrutinize the evidence as well? Is the evidence itself correct? Could the evidence be fabricated or otherwise incorrect? If it's correct, does it only tell the story the police are offering, or can it tell other stories that might be in conflict with the story being offered by the police? Does it even support the police's version of the event?

[@superDpermn]

Good point, this comment deserves more likes

[@user-ez5vq9fd2t]

This is a great point, especially considering that the police's motives are to find the most reliably convict-able suspect to put behind bars. This could mean that they jump to conclusions based on small evidence that lacks ant substance, but because it's the only thing they got, they will pursue it even to the point of criminating an innocent person.

[@azulineamphisbaena9997]

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

[@scotcheggtheguyguy8009]

Excellent point. In this situation, we are not only being asked to believe the police's story of the evidence, but also believe that they are trustworthy, which is a whole separate problem. "Should you trust the evidence" and "should you trust the person showing and interpreting the evidence" are two very different things!

[@joycezhang3966]

Also could there be more evidence to be recovered in the future? Do we really at any point have all the evidence?

[@blueheart9873]

As someone who has been wrongfully accused it does hurt when no one believes you. In this case it was my own mother. It makes your days in prison much, much worse than they already are

[@holycrusader7649]

This might be a touching question which I shouldn't ask but what crime were you convicted of?

[@12DAMDO]

same.. back in mid-school i used to have a mentally deranged bully who liked framing me (even planting fake evidence against me) for all sorts of stuff, and i always ended up getting into trouble.. and the thing that hurt the most was that noone in my family believed my side of the story, even going "this isn't the first time you done something like this" referencing the previous time i got framed by the same person... like wtf do you do in a situation like that?

[@clovercando]

@@12DAMDO damn sorry about that, sounds like your family sucks

[@danielcharles5085]

is it alright now? did you come in terms with your family?

[@jbthemighty638]

@@12DAMDO i think you mean "this isn't the first time you've done something like this" or "this isn't the first thing you've done like this"

[@YourBestBudy]

Parallel dilemma: As the accused should you ask your spouse to believe your innocence or should you express neutrality about their belief? Does that change whether or not you committed the crime?

[@atlas956]

i guess that as an innocent evidentialist who wants them to be one as well you’d express your neutrality and tell them to go with the evidence (because their ability to trust the facts over feelings might save their life in another situation). If you’re an innocent pragmatist and they are too, you’d ask them to believe you, to give them as many reasons as possible to stay with you, as you think that they’d be happiest with you. If you’re guilty… i guess that depends on how manipulative you are, how you feel about your crime, and whether your spouse knows you well enough to tell if you’re lying or what you’d say if you were innocent.

[@vanivanov9571]

You are literally your own best witness to your innocence who your spouse knows well... so to not tell them you're innocent would be denying them critical evidence.

[@bayuubee3633]

I think its only human to want your spouse to believe in you in a situation as scary as being accused of murder. Especially if you’re innocent.

[@cephalonbob15]

a true innocent man would do nothing as his innocence would eventually manifest itself

[@vanivanov9571]

@Celephon Bob: This is a Dunning Kreuger idea. Innocent people normally do protest their innocence heavily, agitated by the injustice of their position. Someone who stayed quiet would normally be more suspicious as having committed the crime, and is afraid to say something that could be used against him. German aristocrats would generally remain quiet when accused of unseemly things by commoners, on the subject, but that's quite a different context.

[@575burntoast]

Fun fact. During interrogation police in the US are able to lie to you about the evidence they have. So believe and support your partner till the court date.

[@artsphere2341]

Until and unless you have a lawyer...the police are obliged to give all the evidence to the lawyer. Therefore it is really necessary to hire a lawyer as soon as such a situation arises

[@Tamizushi]

It's kinda harsh. A few months ago I can out of a relationship with a person who had been gaslighting me for years. The thing is, I already had a lot of reasons, for years, to know they were gaslighters, but I didn't want to admit it, because I loved them. I was madly in love. So I ended up doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to justify their lies, their broken promises. I often accepted part of the responsibility for their behaviors, just because it seams important for them to not be the "bad person" in any given situation. The result was years of confusion, distress, having my heart broken again and again. There are still a lot of things I won't be able to detangle, for having tried so hard in the past to believe them. Lot's of things I will never know. Point being, not trusting your partner when you should will surely damage your relationship, but trusting your partner when you shouldn't might very well damage you. So perhaps then believing the strongest evidence is the best approach. Trust tentatively at first, observe, and trusts their actions more than you trust their words. If their actions and their words tend to match, you can trust their words. Otherwise, you shouldn't.

[@Hanna-tt1ex]

Damn hope you are alright but thank you for the advice I've also been struggling with an ex like that

[@xleplex7070]

God I’m sorry for what you’ve been though, I sincerely hope you are better not. But the thing is in your case the damage was happening to you, but in the example in this video someone else is the victim which changes things a bit.

[@micahbush5397]

I think my stance would be that my spouse, like anybody else, is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and seek out alternative explanations of the available evidence.

[@ChroniclerV]

I'm actually concerned about the crime scene. Why did the accused suspect just leave his/her finger prints behind and all over the murder weapon and room, if he/she did commit the murder?

[@Mark_badas]

@@ChroniclerV That's not the point. You could just say that there's evidence. You are not able to tell if it's fake or not.

[@samtae6217]

@@ChroniclerV It might have just been an impulsive crime and the murderer panicked and forgot to get rid of them. A lot of murders aren't planned.

[@ChroniclerV]

@@Mark_badas Perhaps, but it still has an impact and influence over our judgement, views and beliefs of the individual.

[@ChroniclerV]

@@samtae6217 Perhaps, but it still has an impact and influence over our judgement, views and beliefs of the individual.

[@lila2571]

As someone who's really into true crime and psychology, I'd consider the evidence found by police, and attempt to find a possible motive, connection to the victim, and alibi. If everything points to my spouse being guilty, that's what I'd believe. By ignoring the evidence and unconditionally believing your spouse, you could be subjecting yourself to danger.

[@maxmichalik4938]

Does that not depend on the circumstance and the motivation of the murder? Even if the spouse is guilty, they might still be very unlikely to lay hand on you or your loved ones. Like, what if the victim threatened to do something that endangers your family?

[@genshinsbizzareadventures]

​@@maxmichalik4938lawfully wrong = wrong , maybe you might still love them but their actions did indeed cause harm ,hence punishment is necessary to the individual

[@maxmichalik4938]

@@genshinsbizzareadventures I don't quite get how your response works as a unified and logical reply to my own response. So I'll just take it apart and reply to the parts I understand. Lawfully wrong = wrong can't possibly be generalized. There are too many unfair and immoral laws in the world. I don't even know what the phrase "punishment is necessary for the individual" means. Necessary how? What happens to the individual if they don't get punished?

[@genshinsbizzareadventures]

@@maxmichalik4938 yapper Punishment is meant to improve individuals , a punishment can be anything depending on severity. You might ask "why to punish?, who decides to punish?", it is human nature. Go ask your mother or father "will you punish me if I went out and sh©t someone?" Don't be delusional and think about self defence cases , neurodivergent people like you are the reason why logic fails and society goes to the "inclusive" path rather "survival of the fittest" 💀

[@edmundprice5276]

This ethical dilemma actually happened to me, I entered into a relationship with someone, it got off to a great start, then he told me he was an ex-con for a very serious crime Since he spent 8 years in the prison for what he did, I think he did do that crime, but, I came to the decision that since I was completely unconnected with the community, family and the victim against whom he offended, and since he had already been to prison, I had no claim on him. In other words, I decided to stay with him, a sort of misguided unconditional love, regardless of what he had done. didn't last long though, he did something creepy and mentally twisted which left me quite shaken, not an easy thing to do, combined with the nature of his crime was the straw that broke the camel's back, so I dumped him on Christmas day.

[@saami9606]

Whoever created this video deserves a raise. Visually stunning!

[@pranjalirijal7493]

yess

[@dextersakupwanya7878]

Mad respect for this Channel always teaching us something. You people are top notch.

[@DrBrainTickler]

Yeah right. They are a bunch of mediocre minds wasting your time. A weapon of mass distraction preventing you from discovering the smartest people on the planet. The wisest and most profound intellectuals are the most hated people alive and this channel that you love so much doesn't want you to know about the likes of me because they don't want the competition.

[@dextersakupwanya7878]

@@DrBrainTickler with all due respect friend. Why do you keep watching their videos, I mean I see you've commented on other videos to. I'm just wondering if they waste our time with these videos, doesn't that mean you're wasting your time by watching them. You can easily stop. I mean if you disagree with their content it's fine. But you don't have to hate on others who love it.

[@mickidymac7144]

Since there's a possibility other than the spouse being the murderer (they could have picked up the weapon before and not commited the murder), you should still maintain that they're innocent. Unless there is irrefutable evidence to the crime, such as a video of them commiting it, and/or overwhelming evidence that they commited the crime, I think that supporting your spouse is the correct moral course of action.

[@Ikajo]

Finger prints is also a very unreliable form of evidence. Your full fingerprint may be unique, but it is rare to be able to lift a complete fingerprint. And bits can match tons of people.

[@kuddlecat]

@@Ikajo also framing can happen ig

[@mchapman2424]

Theres no reason to believe anything one way or the other in this scenario, and simply withhold judgement until more details are provided. Where was the crime committed? Maybe it was in your spouses place of work, in the break room. Lots of people might have been using the knife to cut food. This is just one example of course. And then obviously you would want to hear what your spouse has to say about the entire thing, not simply "im innocent."

[@HotCrossJuns]

@@mchapman2424 As far as your spouse is concerned in this scenario, withholding judgement *is* judgement. While it's probably the "correct" option from a rational standpoint, choosing to not believe your spouse when they are accused of murder would presumably still damage your relationship with them.

[@addymant]

I would need way more information than "fingerprints on the murder weapon" to believe someone committed murder, much more a lifelong partner.

[@ClairandHerImaginaryCat]

Wait… the opening scene… does that mean there will be an ethics series in the future??? PLEASE I WOULD DIE FOR IT

[@silentsmurf]

They’ve already done a few ethics videos from the scrolling list in the opening scene, such as the trolley problem one, self-driving cars, and the Tylenol murders (called burger murders in that video)

[@shivamthakur1176]

If you die how would you see it 😂

[@ChroniclerV]

I'm actually concerned about the crime scene. Why did the accused suspect just leave his/her finger prints behind and all over the murder weapon and room, if he/she did commit the murder?

[@DLCS-2]

Same . That topic wasn't touched at all

[@_RoseDawson_]

It could be that he is not a serial killer but one-time murderer? I mean, maybe he isnt really that clever? 😅

[@samtae6217]

It might have just been an impulsive crime and the murderer panicked and forgot to get rid of them. A lot of murders aren't planned.

[@ChroniclerV]

@@samtae6217 Probably, but now comes the motive and reason. What drove the individual to impulse and commit the crime. And does he/she actually know their victim? Was the victim really a random person, is the victim an acquaintance, a close friend, a business partner or something else?

[@shawnwarrynn8609]

@@samtae6217 What if the evidence is false? What if he/she is being framed?

[@jackielinde7568]

In addition to the "For better or worse" clause in most people's wedding vows (because you can write your own vows), the US has a legal tradition that just because the police show up at your door with evidence to arrest someone, that the person arrested by the police is only accused of committing the crime and is to be considered innocent until they're proven guilty in a court of law. Sadly, this tradition seems to be going to the wayside in a lot of areas outside the legal system. People have lost jobs, friends, and even spouses on only the accusation of committing a crime. Thanks to a more virulent news industry only interested in selling eyeballs to advertisers, even in events where people were acquitted of their crimes in a court of law, they spent years and decades trying to convince people they're innocent.

[@chukstristan3605]

The thing is "innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for the legal (criminal justice) system. A corporate workplace - with their regulations and contractual rules - is not a court of law. Neither is a Twitter feed/account.

[@AnotherAvaibleName]

@@chukstristan3605 That doesn't mean its fair. It's valid for OP to criticize it. The "muh private bizness" is tiresome.

[@damunaik4]

Examples in real life: The terrorist groups in Pakistan that were actually put to action by the US and the media portraying the whole country as the reason of its existence and showing the US as the savior. I'd say same with Putin and the Ukraine Crisis. His method is absolutely flawed no doubt, but the media and everyone is quick to overlook the fact that the US tried to establish their own base there, even put a vassal that is Zelensky, to eventually attack Russia.

[@AbrahamSamma]

What might be needed is a "set the record straight" law, similar to or as an add-on to the "forget me" laws in Europe under GDPR wrt deleting slanderous or embarrassing info on the internet, which compells legal entities to adhere to the court's judgement and not make decisions based on past accusations that have been proven definitively false in a court of law.

[@curleyqreviews9793]

@@AbrahamSamma I always thought the names of the victims and accused should be withheld until the trial's conclusion. That way, news networks can't taint a jury pool

[@Soylent1981]

There is more than just the factual question of whether the spouse killed someone, but also the moral question of whether the killing was justified. The factual question may be difficult on its own, but the moral question of justification may be impossible to judge in another person.

[@aprilrahee]

But the question is " Will you continue to love your partner if you find him guilty?"

[@anushkasingh8473]

Ethical dilemma hits harder than anything cause you can't get over it- it haunts forever because it doesn't have a proper way of approach- Ted doing an awesome job again by informing people about it💕💕

[@CheshireFiles]

As a forensic anthropologist I would always look at the evidence. But my husband wouldn't have been caught.

[@animeyahallo3887]

This is probably an anime MC's worst nightmare who married a yandere.

[@E.h.a.n]

Lmao

[@FlynnMegaTensei]

My life is like an anime~

[@lenl8004]

@@FlynnMegaTensei lol no

[@dln.ynchoy]

"could you love a murderer?" *every wattpad fanfiction:*

[@SorakaOTP462]

What's wrong about being a murderer? Not all murderers are as bad as majority thinks.

[@wilfredogaringa3554]

Reason, logic, evidence and critical thinking are the pillars of my belief system.

[@alvindomantay4156]

Since evidence may not be valid, a re-run of the investigation and personal testing is how we can genuinely find what's real and what's not. If my spouse is a murderer or not, I would suggest that following legal regulation is an answer but with love because he/she might not be a murderer at all.

[@nepenthes9424]

I think one might be more able to think "in dubio pro reo" with a loved one than a not loved one. The human right of a fair trial is usualy violated by the public rather than by those people close to the accused.

[@ChewingGumFlavor]

It depends. How long have we been together, how strong is the evidence (fingerprints can be forged), how well do I know this person, and how trustworthy is the police investigation. But why am I bothering thinking, I don't have a girlfriend for 3 years now. 🤣

[@stankssmile5865]

Stay singley friend, dying without company is better than having a murderer partner

[@pastel.persephone]

@@stankssmile5865 comments like yours are why I lurk comment sections! really made me laugh!

[@stankssmile5865]

@@pastel.persephone it's actually sickening how many partners these serial molestors and killers supported them, some remarried man, the idea of atleast dying alone happy and free should be chosen over settling for a crazy macho(the mind tricks agression and subjugation as good survival techniques out in nature, I know real manhood is different but these women mistook that) guy

[@KS-mt1lb]

I think the adage of "Trust but verify" is the way to go!

[@punprincess3214]

The dilemma of this is our emotions, we see things through a rose colored lens when love is involved, we want to desperately believe our spouse is innocent even when the evidence is stacked heavily against them and even when proven guilty they can still proclaim they're innocent. Emotions make it hard to think clearly about how you perceive a situation

[@Evan-yl7xw]

I think if it was me... I can believe both the fact that my spouse is a good person 'towards me' and the fact that they might also be a murderer...

[@helio3928]

combine both, and approach the situation like a lawyer. you owe your spouse help, but you also cannot disregard reality as a thinking person.

[@matthewlui1004]

In my case, I would believe the evidence and talk my spouse into telling the truth. But I will not stand on either side in court, and won't stand as a witness. It doesn't matter if I believe, it is how I react and help her in that situation.

[@sebastianelytron8450]

Even if I knew I was innocent, I would want my spouse to be skeptical of me and stay away from me until we get to the bottom of this. (I would begin to question my own sanity if the evidence was overwhelming like that) That way I would know her love for me is genuine, based on my good character and me being a good person, not just blind love.

[@johandh2o]

But, you still would say "please, believe me" to them, not "please be skeptical", right?... Because that would be like saying "I did it"

[@Queen101Dalmatians]

@@johandh2o Honey, I refuse to say I am innocent because I dont want to influence your opinion about my innocence based on all the evidence. So stay sceptical my love!

[@thetarotclinic7499]

This is true, to me it's important to follow the evidence and be sceptical, but also if my partner is a truly compatible person for me, he would understand that it's a complicated situation, and it's not like I'd 100% leave this guy before proven guilty.

[@animesuki05]

The presentation and animation of these videos are really amazing and appealing. I hope people behind these get paid a lot. It's so seamlessly perfect.

[@brileymoreno4108]

Loved the dichotomy held with the red and blue theme throughout the video! As always, great video!

[@mmmk1616]

Just love TED-Ed, they are always expanding my mind :)

[@DrBrainTickler]

Do you like mind expansion? Do you really? And what if total nobody's who have been victimized by cancel culture are actually some of the smartest people on the planet but you never discover that they never get any to support, no one ever promotes them but rather just poaches them if they do discover us? What if we would expand your mind in ways that sped talks and sped Ed is to cowardly to speak of? The most honest and brazen as well as logically infallible and intellectually honest intellectuals on the planet, the majority of never heard of because there is a staunch prejudice against intelligence that nobody's facing and the likes of me has been canceled by all of society for over 20 years. I wonder how many others are in the same position as me, I wonder how many of us are going to waste? I wonder how many of us are being murdered by making us a Dead Men walking?

[@ekillustsoebagja7499]

Could you love a murderer ? : Yes! Could you love psychopaths? : No!

[@DendrocnideMoroides]

You can definitely love psychopaths, they can't love you back though.

[@neonbunnies9596]

My partner: Begs them to believe that they didn't commit the murder Me, who already knows I killed the victim: *Yeah, this is big brain time*

[@Diapolo10]

I'd take a page straight out of Hercule Poirot's playbook and initially assume that they'd be neither guilty nor innocent. Then I'd scrutinise the evidence, see if it can only lead to one possible conclusion. I'd also hear their part of the story. If I find that the only possible conclusion is that they're guilty, then I believe they're guilty, but otherwise I assume innocence and believe them.

[@user-kf5ky3cv1u]

I took Prof Worsnip’s epistemology class. He was a very cool professor and super knowledgeable. Glad to see him here!

[@kaydubsthekoifish]

I'm working on a story with a similar concept, and the fact that this video title has the EXACT question I was wondering about while writing it... Well I was quick to click on it. Even though the video came about two years later... Oh well.

[@Phuonganhnguyent]

Good luck!

[@DrBrainTickler]

The people who are at the crest of the wave are rarely those who get to capitalize because we just get poached and then the people who get poached, get poached and then it ends up in the hands of people who already have everyone's attention so they get to capitalize... That's what antisocial media is really all about, oppress the talent and then capitalize on them the entire time like vultures picking their bones clean... Even some of the most amazing artists and musicians will continue to be capitalized on well after their dead because that's when KZbin's really going to start promoting their work.

[@poopy5101]

@@DrBrainTickler why are you talking about capitalism? Who are you saying this for?

[@katiewong2051]

This video reminds me of the novel-turned-Netflix-show Anatomy of a Scandal. The lack of clearly right and wrong answers is what makes ethics so interesting imo

[@skystrike41508]

I would believe my spouse because fingerprints can often be faulty evidence against someone. Also because the American justice system is flawed in many ways, and because there could be more going on than you think.

[@qqiland]

i love the animation in this!! the sound effects are also amazing!

[@gildedbear5355]

I believe my spouse because I believe that my spouse would tell me the truth if they had actually murdered somebody. It's a foundational part of our relationship; we tell each other the hard things honestly because discomfort now is better than the discomfort as well as the pain of betrayal and dishonesty.

[@kbtken]

I just told my girlfriend if she was a murderer I would still love her. She seemed relieved

[@marcoluciani4790]

I'd just tell them "Listen, I'm more than willing to believe that you're innocent, but the evidence against you is strong. I won't leave you until it's proven in a court of law, but I won't be shielding you from it either. We'll go through this together... Wether we come *out* of it together or not depends on if you're a liar."

[@flowersArePretty1]

1:42 that’s a clever animation

[@shiro9950]

Why would what they had done change your emotional attachment ? Doesn’t mean you like what they may have done …. Doesn’t change you love them. This silly social pressure of turning your back on someone is ridiculous You can love and support someone even if you absolutely despise and hate and or disgusted by their actions Love isn’t a choice it’s a commitment you know till death do us part in a marriage vow type commitment. Honestly society needs to stop pressuring folk into just simply turning their backs on people. Remember theirs innocent folk around sed person and just because someone they love does something doesn’t mean they have a switch that just turns everything off like they are expected too or bullied into by social fear and pressure and judgment.

[@justinoz1526]

"Remember: it's not a lie if you believe it." George Costanza. Jokes aside, if the evidence was overwhelming & credible I don't think I could just will myself into believing in their innocence. If they couldn't at least see why I had to consider the evidence it might make me more suspicious that they were guilty.

[@atlas956]

This is such an important question. I believe i’m a quite strong evidentialist, and just now realized that I’d want a partner to think the same way too. If I was the spouse, I’d want my partner to scrutinise me and go with the evidence too, because imagine if they were with someone who had committed the crime. In that case, not looking at the evidence would be very dangerous, and i’d want my partner to be safe, even if that meant they think i committed a crime i didn’t.

[@Phuonganhnguyent]

Came to watch an interesting dilemma and returned with an extreme tangled mind and tense hypothesis :(((

[@angrychihuahua8725]

another question I'd like to pose is- Could you still love someone even if they themselves confess to have killed? (given they're repentant and more or less moral). Is there really a limit to forgiveness? context: Crime and Punishment- Dostoevsky

[@trashAndNoStar]

Depends on the case for me personally. Self defense or (an otherwise equal) fight, most likely yes. Murder, no.

[@lenaelisabeth]

This animation is so trippy, it adds to the creepiness of the narration

[@BlueEyes-WhiteDrag0n]

If the evidence is convincing and there's motive. Then it's best to believe the law and cut off ties with the person be it husband/wife.

[@acjazz01]

I love my partner, not just because he loves me, but because I admire his worldview, his empathy, because he spreads love, so yes, I would give a chance him to explain me why he's being falsely accused. And if I believed him, I would fight with all my resources to prove his innocence.

[@alyshahkinsella]

I mean, many people adhere to the belief that love is blind, and I agree that everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, but if your spouse I'd lying to you then that's wrong.

[@joyl7842]

This stuff is so relevant nowadays. It's frightening to me that society and especially world leaders struggle with this, even though it was first thought of thousands of years ago. People nowadays believe so many lies that are told, based on silly things such as: somebody's position of power, popularity, wealth etc. It makes me lose hope so much of the time.

[@campbellmartin2499]

I think everyone here is missing the larger concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Although your wife could be a murder, she should still be treated as innocence and therefore supported until an offical verdict has occurred.

[@rickrolling795]

If the fate of a person is decided by which lawyer is better at arguing and lying, there's something wrong with humanity's justice system.

[@aishighosh4709]

My brain would come to a conclusion by evaluating the evidence present irrespective of whether I want to do it or not. If my spouse has always been nice to me I'll most likely believe them as there's a high chance that they might be innocent. I think non judgemental confrontation is the best. Even if they did murder someone there could be multiple reasons why they did so. If it's an appropriate reason I may even be willing to help them out.

[@banana_siaanna]

People are multifaceted creatures, both can be true - your spouse can be loving, kind, and gentle towards you while being a cold blooded killer towards others.

[@Philosophical_engineer]

When presented with a claim, you shouldn’t immediately believe it but rather you should maintain your original position which was “lack of belief due to lack of this knowledge”. This claim should be viewed as just a new piece of information(knowledge) that you heard and stored in your mind. When evidence is presented, deeply analyse and critique the evidence without bias/expectations. Things to consider can be ; 1. Is there more evidence to be discovered? 2. Are there more possible theories that can be crafted to explain this evidence? The reason you should consider crafting as many theories as possible is because sometimes we may not know what Is possible. Example is; in 1996 scientists successfully cloned a sheep. So it is very much possible to do the same for human since humans and sheep are not that different in reproductive processes. Therefore, if police found evidence of your dna on a crime scene, it could have been a clone of you that committed the crime.

[@Chirp-chirp]

You had me until cloning., bruh

[@Philosophical_engineer]

@@Chirp-chirp kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKLIdIiPaZd0Y6c Somatic cell cloning. Many people like you think science hasn’t been progressing in the past few decades because you don’t update your knowledge constantly. So you think cloning is fiction because you have watched many fiction movies about it. Sorry to burst your bubble but somatic cell cloning was done successfully in 1996, almost 3decades now. You need to be constantly updating your knowledge because it is very hard to see progress in the period you are living in.

[@Speireata4]

I believed so many lies my boyfriend told me or at least I tried to, but over time I knew he lied. I am just happy he did not kill anyone or stuff like that. And I am happy that he is my ex boyfriend now.

[@cheryl-lynnmehring8606]

I would be the Evidentialist. If the evidence was undeniably strong, I would face the truth. I would be unbiased and do what is morally right.

[@hieuchivu]

The animation in this one is amazing!

[@tristanjohns5288]

"unbiased 3rd party" is a strong statement and assumption to take on.

[@sherlock1854]

Probably the most relevant question in the world currently.........

[@TheMedicatedArtist]

I’ve watched enough true crime documentaries to know that not all evidence is accurate and that the police can get lazy, sloppy, or let corruption allow the actual perpetrator get away. Not saying I’d blindly agree with my spouse, just take everything either side says with a grain of salt.

[@sarahdannhaus8123]

You can't chose what to believe but you can choose which things you focus on. His loving relationship with you or the evidence

[@harringt100]

I think it's pretty obvious that at least some people can control what they believe. Otherwise, we would not have so many morons running around insisting certain things are true, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It's called motivated reasoning. You simply choose which evidence to pay attention to. Even if the evidence you like is scarce, lacking in relevance, or poor quality.

[@Akunologia]

My simplified answer: Decide whether to believe based on the evidence. I would have a hard time convincing myself to ignore the evidence, and would also probably give every possible benefit of the doubt while examining the evidence. But ultimately what I believe will be based on the evidence. But Still support my spouse. Even if I think they're lying, we have vowed to trust and support each other, and there's still the possibility that my belief that they did it is wrong. Short of them admitting to you that they did it, you'll probably never know why they did it, if they did. Hopefully you'll be able to believe that it was for a reasonable reason.

[@pinakypaliwal7622]

I think even more challenging test case would be of a suspect child or parent. We've known them for the longest time and share the strongest bond of trust with and duty of care towards them.

[@Out_in_the_Open_5]

One question I'd ask is, why do the police have a finger print match on record? If the spouse has a criminal history that significantly tips the scale towards guilty.

[@paradoxicalpotato8927]

I would love more of these logic videos. They are quite general and everybody can enjoy them.

[@Yyaammzz]

Very interesting. Loved the animations for this props to the animator

[@faux_vampire]

Yes, the foundation of any working / healthy relationship is trust. So I’ll trust them. You can have a lot of ways to plant a fake evidence.

[@joshuaespinoza8325]

the only information you need to know is the motive. murder is not necessarily unjustifiable. if they had a good reason for it, then all is well in the relationship.

[@jiaweichew3370]

Personally, look at the evidence, question it’s validity and accuracy, double check the facts against the person being accused. If the accused can give a very clear explanation and not look suspicious like pauses or fidgeting then it’s highly likely to be the truth. Show no emotion in judgment as emotion clouds rational judgement.

[@adorablegodzilla5628]

People can't make unbiased political opinions and a spouse is going to hold stronger emotions than that.

[@antisocialbred]

why are my spouse's fingerprints on the metal part of the knife

[@feartheghus]

This dilemma is moot for me. If she had murdered someone she'd just tell me honestly, and I would do the same for her. We live our entire lives in service to what is best for the other and with honesty prized above basically anything else, and only below that which is serves: to act in each other's best interests (to love each other). If she said she didn't do it it is because that is true, if she had done it she would've told me in private and we'd go from there. Part of why this works is because had she told me in private that does not mean I will be against her, because that breaches the supreme priority of doing what's best for her. The sanctity of marriage and its holiness is why in proper justice systems spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other.

[@SACworks]

I really like the new intro. The ethical dilemma then the topic. Allows me to understand right of the bat what we are going to learn. Also, the animation is very interesting. Kind of reminds me of the title artwork of the book Wonder. (Is it just me, or should there be a flashing light warning?)

[@cpete1459]

You can love anybody. But that's why there are boundaries and consequences.

[@lambadajewo.4143]

Plot twist: I was my spouse's partner in crime all along

[@sadafxshow]

Thank you for raising curiosity and knowledge in us, Love from Iran

[@Are2-Dee2]

As an evidentialist who is also fairly pragmatic, would the nature of the crime itself determine your loyalty to your spouse? Because for me, I think I'd want to know the truth, regardless and would rely heavily on the evidence to come to any conclusions on that front. But I would be pragmatic about my subsequent decision to support my spouse and one of the considerations that would weigh heavily in this would be the nature of the crime.

[@firelordOzai3]

I would probably be more mad that I could have married someone incompetent enough to leave the such damning evidence at the scene of the crime. It would then be my duty as their spouse to try to get rid of the evidence by any means necessary

[@fartz3808]

I think for many people it's easier to love a murderer than a political/ideological opponent.

[@allzzjn]

It's my birthday today! This episode is a gift!

[@keanuapproved]

This is such a difficult question. When you love someone, oftentimes being an evidentialist is hard. I would listen and not leave my spouse and at the same time listen and speculate the accusations and evidences, if they’re actually legitimate. Or it’s a set up or some awful revenge whatever. Love is a difficult theme to tackle when it involves crime. Can you love a murderer? I can’t. But until it’s proven true, I love that person.

[@joycezhang3966]

This video singlehandedly animated my trust issues

[@francegamer]

to me it depends if and what the motive is, if theres not one then maybe the evidence needs to be considered more. if theres a really good motive then maybe the murder was justified.

[@ThitutUhthalye]

Love this new ethical dilemma series. And the animation is gorgeous

[@Abell_lledA]

One doesn’t experience self transcendence, the illusion of self only dissipates~ 🎈

[@DrBrainTickler]

Now that's a good comment. Excessive individualism truly is a delusion. Now those that read the comment section will have their sense of identity and self murdered by the likes of us. The state of constant transformation will emerge and slight release of one of the chains that binds us in a mental prison is broken for them.

[@DrBrainTickler]

I am a serial killer because I existentially murder the sense of self using logic and the axioms of existence. In this way, my other transforming state of existence has successfully murdered more people than any other serial killer in all of history and some of them have even thanked me for it. Muhahaha

[@sirisenpai]

OH MY GOD! the animation is so on point