Exercise#3 Case Study on Morality

Posted on August 26, 2013 by nehakamal










Moral dilemmas are posed often by conflicts of moral values which can be represented as either conflicts
between different moral principles, or issues that are raised by the application of one moral principle
(conflicting applications of a given moral principle, or questions concerning whether a principle applies at
all). In each of the following, consider which of the principles that we have considered in class (honesty,
promise-keeping, nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and equality) apply in these cases, and how
they help to define the moral issues at stake. (Note: the task here is not to solve the moral dilemma, but
to define the dilemma in terms of relevant moral principles). I would suggest that you write down your
answers. Then check your answer according to analysis given in side:

1. Melinda’s father is suffering from a The ethical question concerns primarily a conflict between the principles of
gradually worsening dementia due to autonomy and beneficence. Autonomy normally requires that we respect that
Alzheimer’s disease. She has a deep decisions that individuals make concerning their own welfare, but in cases where
respect for her father, a man who has someone clearly is unable to take care of themselves, the duty of beneficence would
always felt a deep sense of personal take precedence. This is a case of the “grey area,” where it is not so clear whether the
responsibility and has valued his father’s growing dementia is severe enough to justifyoverruling his own decisions for
independence and sense of self- reliance. the sake, of his welfare.
He still insists on making his own
decisions, but lately he has suffered from
significant memory loss, and this has
caused Melinda to be concerned about his
welfare. She is considering whether she
should take greater responsibility for
making important decisions about his
treatment and his living situation, despite
his father’s protests that he can take care
of himself.
2. Jason is a lawyer who is currently This is a case of conflicting loyalties. The loyalty we have as moral agents based on
representing Company Y in contract special relationships to others, such as, in this case, professional-client relationships,
negotiations with Company X. The can be understood as based in the principle of promise-keeping: we make explicit or
crucial meeting is today: if final implicit promises to our family, friends, business or professional associates, clients,
agreements are not reached, Company X etc., that we will faithfully work with them to achieve common ends and come to their
has said that they will end negotiations. aid in time of need. Such explicit or implicit promises may come into conflict, such as
Another client calls–a customer is suing in this case. Another principle that can apply at such times is the principle of
her company for marketing a harmful beneficence: if Jason’s help will aid one of his clients more significantly than the
product. She needs to talk with Jason over other, then that can be the basis for deciding where the stronger obligation lies.
legal strategies in the case. Jason cannot
help both client’s today, although both
client’s clearly need his help. Jason
weighs his obligations to both clients.
3. Milly Thompson works for a charity Clearly the principle of honesty applies in this case: this principle would require that
organization that provides funds for inner Milly tell the donor the truth. On the other hand, the principle of beneficencewould
city projects that help the poor. She has suggest that Milly should do what it takes to secure the donation for the sake of the
been talking with a potential donor who is good this will do for the poor. Complicating the issue is the question of whether a
willing to give a very large sum of money charity should take money from donors who place stipulations born out of personal
to the charity, but this donor is deeply prejudices on their donations, stipulations that may require in the future that the charity
prejudiced against Hispanics, and is not make decisions as to who they benefit on the irrelevant basis of the ethnic heritage of
willing to give any money to projects in the beneficiaries. This involves a consideration of the principle of equality.
Hispanic neighborhoods. The potential
donor asks Milly directly whether any of
the money that he would donate would go
to such projects. Currently the only
projects that the charity is funding are
projects in Hispanic neighborhoods, and
Board of Directors of the charity has
stipulated that all current donations must
go to these projects. Times are hard, and
very few donations are currently coming
in. In fact, without this donation, many of
the current projects will have to be
canceled. Milly considers what she
should do: lie to the donor or tell the
truth.
4. Mary James, a state representative, has The primary issue involves a conflict in the application of the principle of
just received confidential information that nonmaleficence: releasing the information will harm the employees of the plant who
a Company X, that has a chemical will be out of a job, but failing to release the information will mean that local residents
processing plant in James’ district, has will receive no warning of a potential danger to their health, which may result in their
not taken proper safety precautions to being harmed. The principle of honesty also is involved. If James does not release the
assure that the region around the plant is information, and James makes no statement to the effect that there is no danger, then
protected from dangerous contamination. James, of course, will not be lying to anyone. But James’ constituents might have the
There are some 300 residents in the area, expectation that any public official who had information concerning a public health
and there is a significant danger that their risk would warn the public, which would mean that although James does not lie, she
health may be jeopardized if the situation may be thought at least to deceive the local residents by her failure to offer a warning.
continues. On the other hand, Company X
has been threatening to close the plant in
James’ constituency, which would put
some 6,000 people out of work. If James
releases the information, this would
surely lead Company X to close the plant.
James is considering whether she has the
moral responsibility to release the
information or not.
5. In the summer of 1945 Harry S. The historical and ethical issues of the case are complex, and still hotly debated, but
Truman, President of the United States, two moral principles that clearly apply in this case are the principles
had a difficult decision to make. While it ofnonmaleficence and beneficence. Dropping the atomic bomb on a populated area
was quite clear that Japan would meant killing tens of thousands (a violation of the principle of nonmaleficence). On the
eventually be defeated, the Japanese were other hand, it had the potential of saving the lives of many thousands of U.S. soldiers
showing no sign of surrender. It appeared as well as tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians who would be lost in an
likely that to defeat Japan, an invasion invasion of Japan (principle of beneficence). In this case, as in other cases of
Japan would be necessary. However such international relations in war and peace, a conflict between the principles ofpromise-
an invasion would take a devastating toll keeping and equality (justice) applies as well. The President has a responsibility to
on both sides: estimates of losses on both safeguard national interests, a responsibility that can be understood to stem from a
sides ranged into the millions, and an promise that the President makes to the nation upon the assumption of power. This
invasion would surely mean a long
protraction of the war. Due to the success
of the “Manhattan Project” there was an
alternative: dropping an atomic bomb on
Japanese territory might convince the
Japanese generals of the futility of their
position. A drop on an unpopulated area
might be tried, but because the Japanese
military had shown an obstinate
willingness to fight to the last, it was
believed that such an act would not be
likely to lead to a surrender. If dropping
the bomb was to be successful, it was
thought, it would have to be dropped on a
populated area of some strategic
importance to the Japanese. But this, of
course, meant certain death for tens of
thousands of Japanese.
6. David, a single father, has promised his
seven-year-old son that he would attend
his son’s baseball game on Saturday. On
Saturday morning, however, a close
friend, John, calls. John, who has been
unemployed for six months, has just been
asked to interview for a new job, and if he
doesn’t show up today he loses his one
firm prospect for employment. John’s
wife is away on a trip, and he needs
someone to look after his infant daughter.
He tells David he’s tried everyone he can
think of, and David is his last hope. David
does not want to disappoint his son, but
he knows he couldn’t attend the baseball
game if he takes care of John’s daughter
for the day.
7. Tom and Steve are fellow foot soldiers
fighting a war. They are part of a major
offensive against the enemy in a conflict,
an offensive that is failing–their division
is being forced by the enemies
counteroffensive to retreat. Tom and
Steve become separated from the rest of
their division when Steve is hit by
shrapnel from an exploding mortar round.
Steve is apparently gravely wounded, but
is conscious and appears lucid. Believing
that he is about to die in any case, Steve
urges Tom to leave him and retreat to
safety. Tom believes that he might have a
chance to save Steve if he can carry him
to safety in time, but knows that this will
involve a grave risk to himself, and might
very well be futile. He wonders whether
he should respect the wishes of Steve, or
responsibility would endorse, in this case, a greater concern for the welfare of U.S.
soldiers over the welfare of the Japanese. On the other hand, there are limits to such
favoritism based on the principle of equality, which, applied strictly, would require an
equal consideration of the welfare of all people, regardless of national status. One such
limit long recognized in the history of warfare is that noncombatants in a conflict
should not be targets of direct attack, which they surely were when the bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if such action would achieve military
objectives. Although this prohibition was violated many times during WW II, by all
sides, this provides no valid basis for the claim that it may be ignored in this case.
This case involves a conflict between the ethical demands of promise-
keeping and beneficence. As in case two above, we might understand this case as
involving a conflict of loyalties based on the explicit promise that David made to his
son against the implicit promise to render aid in time of need that in part defines the
ethical basis of David’s friendship with John. The question is, which promise is more
significant? The principle of beneficence would require that David help out his friend
John, but this does not mean necessarily that David’s prima facie obligation to John is
stronger than his obligation to his son. When one action is supported by two ethical
principles and an alternative action is supported by one principle, this does not
necessarily mean that the first action defines our obligation. Some consideration of the
nature and importance of the prima facie obligations themselves is required.
This case raises prudential and ethical issues that are interconnected. Tom must
consider the risk that he would face in his attempt to save Steve. This is a prudential
issue, but it has implications with respect to how the principle of beneficence applies
in the case. The principle of beneficence would require that Tom save Steve, but only if
the risk to Tom’s personal safety is not extreme and the prospect of saving Steve is not
hopeless (the factual issue of risk pertains crucially to the moral issue of obligation
here; if the risk is great, Tom’s attempt to save Steve would be praiseworthy on moral
grounds, but not required–in other words, it would be a supererogatory act).
Complicating the issue is Steve’s insistence that he should be left to die. If Steve is
lucid enough to make a competent judgment, then the principle of autonomy would
suggest that his wishes should be respected. But here the factual issue of competence is
the key–is Steve’s assessment of the situation a reasonable one, or is it born out of
foggy thinking and a sense of hopelessness caused by his wounds?
take the risk to himself and attempt to
save Steve’s life.
8. Mark Thompson, a single man of 25, is This is actually not a moral dilemma, although it may be a personal one. The principle
employed as a clerk in a bank. His boss of honesty applies to the case, requiring that Mark tell the truth, but this principle is not
approaches him with a problem: there has in conflict with any other principle representing a moral value that is pertinent to this
been a confusion in the records of several case, although the principle is in conflict with a prudential concern of Mark’s: saving
of the depositors, which had the effect of his job.Note: We will consider in this course one ethical theory that might be applied in
crediting too much interest to some this case to suggest that a moral question is at stake–ethical egoism. But as we will see,
accounts and not enough to others. Mark ethical egoism is a problematic theory that conflicts strongly with common moral
immediately realizes that he was the intuitions.
cause of the error: he wasn’t terribly
careful the other day, thinking about the
vacation he would take. He fears for his
job if his boss discovers the truth. His
boss asks Mark if he caused the
confusion, and Mark considers whether
he should lie about the whole thing
9. Cheryl is a public health official for a This case involves a conflict between beneficence and autonomy. A quarantine would
local government. She has just been severely restrict the lives of the people within the building (violating the principle of
informed that a number of people at a autonomy), but this action is supported by the principle of beneficence, since it would
local office building have become safeguard the health of the general public. [One might be tempted to appeal to the
suddenly ill. Upon investigation, she finds principle of nonmaleficence in this case: if Cheryl does not impose a quarantine, she is
that their is a highly contagious virus that thereby allowing the public to be harmed by the virus. But typically failing to prevent
is being that is making people in the harm (rather than directly causing harm) is understood by ethicists as a violation of the
building ill, and she wants to keep the principle of beneficence.] Finally, the principle of equality is involved, since Cheryl
virus contained so that others outside the must consider the interests of each occupant of the building and each person outside the
building are not contaminated. She building who might be in danger of being infected by the virus on an equal basis.
considers the option of quarantining
everyone in the building, but wonders
whether a quarantine, which would
confine the occupants of the building for
days or weeks, is justified by the threat
that the virus poses to public health.
10. David is a state trooper on highway The principle of equality would require that everyone living in a certain jurisdiction
duty. He observes a car racing down the should be subject to the same laws, and the laws should apply equally to everyone who
highway at 20 miles per hour above the violates those laws. But in this case, the principle of beneficence suggests a reasonable
legal speed limit. He gives chase, and exception: in order to safeguard the health of the driver’s husband, David should forget
pulls the car over. When he comes over to about the ticket and escort the couple to the nearest hospital.Actually this moral
the driver’s side to give the driver a dilemma could be avoided without sacrificing the moral values of equality or
ticket, the driver explains that her beneficence: David could escort the couple to the hospital and then, once the husband
husband is having a heart attack, and has received medical attention, he could give t
needs to get to a hospital. David’s has the
responsibility to give the driver a ticket.
On the other hand, he determines that the
medical emergency is real, requiring
immediate attention, which would
preclude taking the time to fill out a
ticket.