What would be the right ethical choices in situations?

           When I spent some time down in Franklin, I was a little bored, so I started to Stumble. The topic that I stumbled on was ethics. Some Moral Dilemmas and The Generalized Structure of Ethical Dilemmas. Most of the questions were fairly thought provoking. They made contemplate what would you possibly do in the position of protagonist. Some of these examples are fairly extreme. Some are easy to relate to, some are insightful in the sense that it makes you wonder, where does one’s right’s stop and another’s began. What powers does the government have in imposing moral superiority upon its citizens? It could even have you ponder which way you perceive your moral compass to be pointing to.

Let’s start off by defining what morals are which coincidently are very similar to ethics or ethical ideas. The Webster says

moral - 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

That is the dictionary definition of the word and what it means. That does not really tell us anything. For that we will need examples. This first one was one that left me at a loss for words the first time I read it. It is a powerful and appalling scenario.

 

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?

 

Is this scenario so appalling because it uses the words “concentration camp”, these words tend to be associated with some of the worst atrocities that man is capable of, and thus incite powerful emotions. Of incredible brutality and pain, this is what it seems to do for me. I do not believe myself capable of doing what I perceive to be necessary in this scenario. I believe with a  fair amount of certainty that the guard would have to do it. I would not be able to bring myself to do the act of pulling the chair. It would probably be safe to say that I would be beaten by the guard, however, the life of one’s own child, I believe to be wrong. Which is to say that is one person, my son, worth the life of another innocent human being? And for no other reason than to satiate some guards blood lust. Just thinking about this scenario makes my stomach turn, in disgust. This is one of those scenario’s that you could never answer truthfully until the situation presented itself. Spending time in a camp would most certainly numb one’s self. It would more cause you to be and act like something that you are normally not as a free person.

 

 

Jean Valjean's Conscience, with some comments; see the 1998 movie, Les Miserables, with Liam Neeson, Uma Thurman, and Geoffrey Rush.

In Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, the hero, Jean Valjean, is an ex-convict, living illegally under an assumed name and wanted for a robbery he committed many years ago. [Actually, no -- he is only wanted for breaking parole.] Although he will be returned to the galleys -- probably [in fact, actually] for life -- if he is caught, he is a good man who does not deserve to be punished. He has established himself in a town, becoming mayor and a public benefactor. One day, Jean learns that another man, a vagabond, has been arrested for a minor crime and identified as Jean Valjean. Jean is first tempted to remain quiet, reasoning to himself that since he had nothing to do with the false identification of this hapless vagabond, he has no obligation to save him. Perhaps this man's false identification, Jean reflects, is "an act of Providence meant to save me." Upon reflection, however, Jean judges such reasoning "monstrous and hypocritical." He now feels certain that it is his duty to reveal his identity, regardless of the disastrous personal consequences. His resolve is disturbed, however, as he reflects on the irreparable harm his return to the galleys will mean to so many people who depend upon him for their livelihood -- especially troubling in the case of a helpless woman and her small child to whom he feels a special obligation. He now reproaches himself for being too selfish, for thinking only of his own conscience and not of others. The right thing to do, he now claims to himself, is to remain quiet, to continue making money and using it to help others. The vagabond, he comforts himself, is not a worthy person, anyway. Still unconvinced and tormented by the need to decide, Jean goes to the trial and confesses. Did he do the right thing?

 

Yes, it is taking responsibilities for your actions. The fact of the matter is that he still committed the original act, the robbery. Granted he had managed to slip away and reform himself. Now in a case such as this I don’t think it would be neither unfair nor unprecedented to take into account what he has accomplished and the good he has brought to his community. He does still have to pay the consequences for his actions. Maybe it could be up to the victim that he had wronged earlier to have a say in the decision. I think that the system would treat him very unfairly in the fact that, he has become an important member of this community out in the open, in a sense humiliated the system. So i don’t believe that the judge and the judicial system would be completely fair about the situation. We are a society based on rules, for us to be a civilized, we have to follow those rules and follow through with what we have decided to considered acceptable punishment. If we were to choose who these rules would apply to, it would start discontention in the ranks of people who felt they have been treated as unjust; we would then in turn start to have a break down of civilized society. However ever case is unique, we cannot use blanket justice, we should consider everything. We cannot take the conscience and common sense out of the judicial system.

·  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 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?

 

This comes down to the ancient law of, ‘do unto others, as you would have them do unto you’. The man does have a moral obligation to try and save the boy. Especially since there is no immediate danger to him, at the worst he will be slightly inconvenienced. Now when it comes to the legal side of it, some people have a tendency to become overzealous and hijacking situations like this and skewing the facts; whether it is feeding the mob misinformation or diverting the attention from their very own fallacy, by taking control of it and manipulating it and laying their version of moral superiority on an individual. When it has been shown time and time again no one is infallible. No matter how morally superior they think are, or have convinced those around them.

Should there be laws to force you into helping someone? You should help others if you can. It is very important for a spiritual well-being that you satiate your conscience as well. If you are not spiritual sound or at the very least, trying to become stronger spiritually, then you will turn into a miserable person; thus infecting those around you with your misery and unhappiness. It gives a great sense of contentment when you can make a difference in someone’s life. If one chooses to stay ignorant to this, then all you can do is pity them. One after all can not be forced to do the right thing, and it should not be forgotten that this man has ultimately himself, his own conscience, and answer to and God. We are a society, and as such, set standards that we expect people who participate in this society to live by, and if you don’t like those standards, and break the rules you will be punished accordingly. If you don’t like it, you are always welcome to leave.

 

·  The Last Episode of Seinfeld, not in Grassian.

The cast of Seinfeld, Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer, have a layover in a small New England town. They witness a robbery in broad daylight. The robber has his hand in his pocket, and the victim shouts that the man has a gun. As soon as the robber runs away, a policeman appears on the scene; but instead of pursuing the robber, he arrests Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer for having violated the new "Good Samaritan" law of the town. Since the four of them spent the time of the robbery making fun of the victim, who was fat, their role in the matter doesn't look good, and at their trial everyone who has ever felt wronged by them in the course of the television series testifies against them. They are convicted. Is this just? What were they supposed to do during the robbery? Should they have rushed the robber, just in case he didn't really have a gun?

This is a skewed view on what the intention of the law was. It was not intended for this. One cannot ask someone to voluntarily place their personal safety in jeopardy for the sake of someone else’s material objects. You cannot reasonably ask someone to be a hero. Not everyone has it in them, nor do they want to. For instance, when you are going through a Hazmat training course, they cover confined space rescue, one of the scenario’s that is covered is, if you have a coworker who is not responding in a confined space, it is says that you should enter after him. You don’ want to turn the situation into a multiple body recovery. Think, before you, yourself becomes the next victim. Ultimately it is unjust to hold a stranger. Ridiculing the victim wasn’t the best idea; however what else were they to do. It is they’re right to do it. Yea it is easier to shift the blame to the hecklers for the robbery, instead of just accepting the fact that it was bad luck. You can’t jail someone for hurting someone’s feelings. That’s starting to be a bit draconian, isn’t it now.

• 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. 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?

 

Yes, he did the right thing. Loyalty is a very important part of life. Just because he is not as technically qualified as the other candidate does not mean that he will not be able to bring other qualities to this job. Since Jim already knows what kind of a person that Paul is he knows what to expect. Since there is a personal relationship there it has the potential to go either way. Assuming that both Paul and Jim have a good work ethic and when at work will work I the best interests of the company then there should be no problem. Professional is the name of the game. Now the unstated expectations of Paul are going to be higher than if the other candidate would’ve gotten the job, you have to trust in people. The data in this scenario is lacking, in that it doesn’t paint a complete picture and you have to make assumptions, and those assumptions will be based on your own personal morals. It get’s complicated.

 

 

 

Ultimately when it comes to doing what is ethically concept, it is an ambiguous term. Fortunately there is no right or wrong. It leaves it all up for discussion and the consensus of the public. But having good ethics and morals is a must, it thus requires you to be spiritually secure. Believe in the fact that God has a plan for you, you can not see what it is, and he knows the truth, he will love you regardless as long as you do the right thing.