Question

Moral Dilemma
A moral dilemma involves a situation in which the agent has only two courses of action available, and each requires performing a morally impermissible action.. Plato presents the classic example of a moral dilemma. A man borrows a weapon from his neighbor promising to return it at his neighbors request. One day the neighbor in a fit of rage, asks for the weapon back apparently with the intention to kill someone. The man is faced with a dilemma: if he keeps his promise, then he will be an accessory to a murder if he refuses to hand over the weapon, than he violates his promise. A moral dilemma, then, is a situation, involving a choice between two opposing courses of action, where there are moral considerations in support of each course of action. Few would doubt whether we are in fact faced with difficult moral choices. The question raised by philosophers, though, is whether such dilemmas can be systematically resolved, or whether no systematic solution is available.

The most commonly suggested method of resolving conflicts between obligations is to appeal to the highest intrinsic good. A thing is intrinsically good when it is valued for itself and not merely as an instrument or means to some further end. Money is instrumentally good since it only provides a means to some further good, such as the purchase of a sports car. Music, on the other hand, is thought to be intrinsically good since it is valued for itself and not as a means to something else. Moral philosophers are concerned with uncovering the highest intrinsic good - that which is at the apex of everything that is valued. Human happiness is a common candidate for the highest intrinsic good since everyone strives for happiness, and happiness appears to be the final goal of all our actions. Other nominees for the highest intrinsic good are pleasure, human rationality, God’s will, free human choice, and highly evolved conduct.

Theoretically, if we can determine that pleasure, for example, is the highest intrinsic good, then conflicts between moral obligations would be resolved by determining which course of action produces the most pleasure. Similarly, if God’s will is determined to be the highest intrinsic good, priority would be given to those actions which are most in accord with God’s will. Thus, by locating the highest intrinsic good, moral dilemmas are resolved by appealing to that concept.

Assignment
The following is a list of some moral dilemmas, mostly adapted from Moral Reasoning, by Victor Grassian (Prentice Hall, 1981, 1992). Read each situation carefully.

You are to respond to the following directions for FOUR (4) of the eight dilemmas presented.

• Describe the decision that you would make in the situation and explain. Why.
• Identify the moral theory/ethic (such as “I would follow my conscience,” “I would do what God or the scriptures say is right,” “I would follow the advice of an authority,” etc.) on which you based your decision and explains how it applies to this situation.
• At the conclusion of responding to four of the moral dilemmas, write a final paragraph in which you compare the moral values you presented in your answers. State whether your answers consistently used the same theories/ethics or greatly varied. Based on your analysis of your moral values presented above, describe your general conclusions about your own “moral compass.”
*You should have a total of five (5) paragraphs; each one should be between 4-8 sentences. Grammar and format count.




1. The Overcrowded Lifeboat
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain’s decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some; he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning, since the only possibility for rescue required great effort of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed.. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

2. A Father’s Agonizing Choice
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

3. Sophie’s Choice
In the novel Sophie’s Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 — the 1982 movie starred Meryl Steep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is “honored” for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty?

4. The Fat Man and the Impending Doom
A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

5. A Callous Passerby
Roger Smith, a quite competent swimmer, is out for a leisurely stroll. During the course of his walk he passes by a deserted pier from which a teenage boy who apparently cannot swim has fallen into the water. The boy s screaming for help Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps into save the boy-he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boy’s cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold — he doesn’t want to get his good clothes wet either. “Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid,” Smith says to himself and passes on. Does - Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy? If so, should he have a legal obligation [“Good Samaritan” laws] as well?


6. A Poisonous Cup of Coffee
Tom, hating his wife and wanting her dead, puts poison in her coffee, thereby killing her. Joe also hates his wife and would like her dead. One day, Joe’s wife accidentally puts poison in her coffee, thinking it’s cream. Joe has the antidote, but he does not give it to her. Knowing that he is the only one who can save her, he lets her die. Is Joe’s failure to act as bad as Tom’s action?

7. The Torture of the Mad Bomber
A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

8. The Partiality of Friendship
Jim has the responsibility of filling a position in his firm. His friend Paul has applied and is qualified, but someone else seems even more qualified. Jim wants to give the job to Paul, but he feels guilty, believing that be ought to be impartial. That’s the essence of morality, he initially tells himself. This belief is, however, rejected, as Jim resolves that friendship has a moral importance that permits, and perhaps even requires, partiality in, some circumstances. So he gives the job to Paul. Was he right?

Answer 1

4. The Fat Man and the Impending Doom

Firstly this is a very unfortunate situation to be in. As from the given data we know that it is just not possible for everybody including the fat man to come out of the cave safely. If i was among these people the only option remaining in front of me was to use the dynamite and get the other people to safety before the high tide sets in. We need to understand here that even if we decide to save the fat man he will not be able to get out of that position even after the high tide and might die either way. If we decide to use the dynamite stick we will be able to save many lives and by implication save their immediate family members from an unfortunate situation. I would use the moral ethic " for the greater good of people".

5. A Callous Passerby

This is a very unfortunate incident .Let me assume that i was in Smith's situation. According to me protecting or saving a fellow human being's life is our most important duty. I know that the youngster is unable to swim and has reached in this situation unfortunately. I am an competent swimmer so there is no danger for my own life if i attempt to save him. The water might be cold but as i am a good swimmer it wont be difficult for me to deal with. I will readily ignore the fact the it might get my clothes wet as it is nowhere near as important as saving the life of the young fellow. Hence i will use the moral ethic of " I would follow my conscience".

6. A Poisonous Cup of Coffee

Both the incidences are heinous crimes and Tom and Joe have to be punished for it. Tom's case is a straight murder no doubt about it. In the case of Joe i would classify his crime as even worst than that of Joe. Joe knows that his wife has consumed poison and she is probably showing signs of poisoning. There is very limited time left. Nobody except Joe knows the exact reasons of her situation. Moreover he has the antidote which can help save her life. However he is so hateful or determined to get rid of her, he does not offer any help. Joe's failure to act has not only cost his wife her life but he is also liable to the crime of not helping her when he could have easily. His wife would have no idea that her husband could have saved her life which is something which places his crime more than that of Tom's. Hence i will use the moral ethic of " I would follow my conscience".

8. The Partiality of Friendship

We can assume that Jim works for a company and they have entrusted him with the authority to hire for a position. It is expected ethically and morally that he selects the best qualified and the most suited person for the job, This is how merit works. His friend Paul wants the job but he is not the most suitable candidate. If i was Jim i would give the position to the most suited candidate because even though Paul is my friend i cannot betray the trust the company has put in me to hire the best talent. It would be unfair to the other candidate as he would miss out on a well deserved opportunity. By hiring a less competent individual he would do great disservice to his company as well. Hence i will use the moral ethic of " I would follow my conscience".

From the above examples and the choices i have made there i can clearly say that selflessness is a very important virtue. It is very important to rise above one's self and think about the larger good of the surrounding. It is very important to think about others and act for the larger benefit of the society. It is very important to do " what is right". We all have this inner conscience which is inbuilt in us. But we chose to ignore it and put our own selfish self interest above everything. It is time we forget our narrow minded goals and do something for others. The bare minimum we can do is to save a life. It is also important to follow the law and do as is allowed legally. In all the examples above i have chosen morals that reflect a sensitivity to our society and a helping nature to others.