Morality Assignment

You may choose this assignment.Your assignment should be typed in Microsoft Word with MLA format. Do not write the scenario in your assignment — write only your answers.

This assignment is worth 100 points — that is more than a journal entry. If a journal requires 3 paragraphs, you can assume I am looking for at least twice that.

The following is a list of 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 questions for three of the seven dilemmas presented.

• Describe the decision that you would make in the situation and explain why.
• Identify two moral theories/ethics on which you based your decision and explain how they apply to this situation.
• NOTE: The entire focus of this assignment and chapter 9 centers on application of moral theory. Therefore, If you do not use the moral theories from chapter 9 (and power point lecture), the assignment will not receive any points.
• Moral Dilemmas Assignment
• 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, then 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, Gods 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 Gods will is determined to be the highest intrinsic good, priority would be given to those actions which are most in accord with Gods will. Thus, by locating the highest intrinsic good, moral dilemmas are resolved by appealing to that concept.

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 captains 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 efforts 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?

1. A Fathers 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 dont he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You dont have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

1. Sophies Choice

In the novel Sophies Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 the 1982 movie starred Meryl Street & 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?

1. 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 is screaming for help. Smith recognizes that there is absolutely no danger to himself if he jumps in to save the boy; he could easily succeed if he tried. Nevertheless, he chooses to ignore the boys cries. The water is cold and he is afraid of catching a cold he doesnt 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?

1. 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, Joes wife accidentally puts poison in her coffee, thinking it is 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 Joes failure to act as bad as Toms action?

1. 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 Fifth 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 in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bombers innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

1. 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 he ought to be impartial. Thats 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?