Scenario: There are a group of people on a lifeboat and the boat is sinking. There is also a 400 pound man on the boat. The problem is the boat can only hold ten normal size people. Having said that, the group has to come up with a decision for their survival; so what should they do? Below are the conversations among the passengers.
Consequentialist: If this man is too heavy and he’s going to make the lifeboat sink, we need to decide what to do. Should we throw him overboard? We have to save ourselves. Morally we know that if we throw him overboard he will drown and we will be responsible for his death. I’ve always believed that “Thou shall not kill” – one of the Ten Commandments. Let’s suppose we do throw him overboard and the boat still sinks? Why should all of us drown when it’s only one of him? I think we should pray that someone will come along and save us. Let’s weigh our options because it’s wrong to throw him overboard. “Hence Consequentialism is opposed to common sense and so is probably wrong” (Foot 1967).
Nonconsequentialist – Why shouldn’t we throw this man overboard? He’s the heaviest person in the lifeboat. Who cares if we do throw this 400 pound man overboard, he’s the reason the boat is sinking. It’s morally wrong to throw someone overboard regardless but who cares? It doesn’t matter whether it’s immoral because we all want to live; and if it takes getting rid of one person, so be it. It feels right to throw him overboard to save ourselves. So what if we get charged with murder, it’s him or us.
In response to my decision, I still feel it is not a good idea to throw someone overboard. To do that one has to have no conscience and this would cause an innocent persons’ demise because he surely would not survive ...
... middle of paper ...
...52836952.)
In conclusion, I believe killing an innocent person to save others is wrong. Having said that would his demise guarantee the others will be saved? If you’re in a sinking lifeboat, your first thought is to get rid of all of the heavy objects in the lifeboat. But what’s to say if we did, the lifeboat still wouldn’t sink? Nevertheless an innocent person would be dead. Second scenario, we have two different groups of people: one group (Consequentialists), who think it was okay for Manning to do what he did; and the other group (Nonconsequentialists) who were appalled by his actions. However my questions are: in the end will throwing a 400 lb. person overboard save the other people on the lifeboat, or in Private Manning’s case, did his exposing “top secret information” do more harm than good? The answer is: it’s according to who’s coming up with the answer.
The Jim and the Indians example illustrates a situation in which a man must choose whether to violate his moral code in order to save innocent lives. In this scenario, Jim is a visitor in an area in South American were twenty innocent Indians have been lined up and are about to be killed for showing resistance against their government. The man in charge of killing these Indians has offered Jim a deal: Jim can kill one of the Indians himself and the man will let all of the rest go. However, if Jim does not accept the deal, the execution of all twenty Indians will be carried out as planned. It is morally wrong to murder but is it permissible in this case if it means saving nineteen innocent lives? This scenario brings about the question if there are exceptions to moral code, or if certain actions are wrong in all circumstances.
"If we do let an extra 10 people in our lifeboat, we will have lost our 'safety
In general, we are morally permitted to turn the trolley in order to save five, but kill one. On the other hand, we are not permitted to transplant the organs of one healthy person in order to save five who will otherwise die. According to consequentialists, there is no moral difference between “Trolley” and “Transplant.” Consequentialists believe that “consequences are the only things of moral relevance” (Quinn 287). Actually, the consequences of both cases are either saving the lives of five or the life of one. However, our moral judgement leads that the case of “Trolley” is morally permitted, but “Transplant” isn’t permitted. Why do we think that they are different? I think that the difference between the two cases come from the doctrine
Peter Singer organizes his arguments into an outline form allowing a reader to take individual thoughts, adding them together giving a “big picture.” Within the first few pages, Singer shares two guiding assumptions in regards to his argument to which I stated above. The first assumption states “that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad” (231). Singer steps away from the typical writing style; he states the assumption yet he does not give a personal comment in regards to the assumption. He chooses to do so because the assumption itself is surely uncontroversial; most people would agree, but to those who don’t agree, there are so many possibilities at which to arrive to this assumption that, after all, if they don’t yet comprehend its truth, it would be hard to convince them of its accuracy. Speaking for myself, if I encountered an individual that does not agree to the assumption that death by avoidable causes is bad; I would not hesitate to declare them of being heartless. There are many cases, whether across oceans on foreign land or areas to which we live, where people are dying because of inescapable, unfortunate reasons. Within such cases, even a possible little voice in the back of the head can lead one to wonder who has the responsibility of helping those who are enduring such unnecessary deaths. This sense of wonder leads us to Singer’s second assumption; “if it is in our power to prevent something from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (231). To better clarify what this assumption is looking for, Singer points out that “It requires u...
As she was pulled out of the water by the two guards that witnessed her slip underneath the water's surface, I realized it was my turn. I aggressively unzipped my fanny pack where my CPR mask was stored and began checking vitals. She had a pulse but was not breathing. My heart immediately dropped. I wanted to perform the rescue by myself. I trusted the hours of training I had gone through, I knew would perform it right and to the best of my abilities. Even though I knew everyone was just as
Bush, S. S., Connell, M. A., & Denney, R. L. (2006). Ethical Practice in Forensic Psychology: A Systematic Model for Decision Making. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11469-001
ABSTRACT: Recently, unrestrained consequentialism has been defended against the charge that it leads to unacceptable trade-offs by showing a trade-off accepted by many of us is not justified by any of the usual nonconsequenlist arguments. The particular trade-off involves raising the speed limit on the Interstate Highway System. As a society, we seemingly accept a trade-off of lives for convenience. This defense of consequentialism may be a tu quoque, but it does challenge nonconsequentialists to adequately justify a multitude of social decisions. Work by the deontologist Frances Kamm, conjoined with a perspective deployed by several economists on the relation between social costs and lives lost, is relevant. It provides a starting point by justifying decisions which involve trading lives only for other lives. But the perspective also recognizes that using resources in excess of some figure (perhaps as low as $7.5 million) to save a life causes us to forego other live-saving activities, thus causing a net loss of life. Setting a speed limit as low as 35 miles per hour might indeed save some lives, but the loss of productivity due to the increased time spent in travel would cost an even greater number of lives. Therefore, many trade-offs do not simply involve trading lives for some lesser value (e.g., convenience), but are justified as allowing some to die in order to save a greater number.
When I was working as a Customer Service Representative in the Bank, one of my responsibilities was to supervise the tellers. I was friends with two of the tellers working there at the time. We used to go out together outside of work and had great time. At some point I started noticing that they are being too friendly with each other and acting inappropriate for a professional environment. I decided to confront them and they confessed to me that they were dating. That is when I realized that I was faced with an ethical dilemma.
Making the moral right decision is never seen on paper. What could be seen as the right thing to do, may not be the right thing for other people. Also, making decisions and then having to face them later on, can impose a difficult problem for many people. Many of us have made a decision that we end up regretting later on. In the healthcare field, decision making could be life and death of a patient
Determining the moral difference between killing and letting die has been a constant debate between many philosophers, with the basis of arguments cemented through the explanation of theoretical cases. However, as Winston Nesbitt states, the ethical theory that one holds determines their personal stance on the issue, and thus although to some extent individual morality is based on and developed by common societal grounds, it is not always clear what is morally correct on the whole. (NESBITT). This is evident in the example of John Lad’s case where the comparison is presented between killing someone by pushing them into river when you know they cannot swim verses not rescuing someone who is drowning in a river even if you are capable of doing so, thus letting them die. (LADD) Most would agree in this case that the behaviour in the first scenario would be notably morally worse than in the second. Nesbitt, however, believes that this is an inaccurate conclusion as we have only come to it due to the assumption that there are differences in motives, such that we are inclined to associate a malicious motive with the case of killing, while maybe only fear or indifference with the case of failing to save. Typical acts of ki...
Death is an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity. The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats 'members of the human race as non humans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded . It is thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the Clause that even the vilest criminal remains a human being possessed of common human dignity. As such it is a penalty that 'subjects the individual to a fate forbidden by the principle of civilized treatment guaranteed by the [Clause]. Therefore, death is today a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Clause. The ethical question here is, “Is the death penalty violating our very own amendments?”
In the profession of Dental Hygiene, ethical dilemmas are nearly impossible to avoid, and most hygienists at some point in their professional life will have to face and answer ethical questions. Some ethical conflicts the dental hygienist may encounter can be quite complex and an obvious answer may not be readily available. In the article Ethical Decision Making, Phyllis Beemsterboer suggests an ethical decision-making model can aide the dental hygienist in making appropriate decisions when confronted with an ethical situation, and that the six-step model can serve dental hygienists in making the most advantageous ethical decision (2010).
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
It does not matter if the greatest, or the least "good" would result from such an act. I hold to the belief that all human beings are intrinsically valuable. This is due to the fact that I, as a Christian, believe that all humans are created in the image of God. But before we go too far we must first accurately define our terms. Murder is always wrong, but it is not always wrong to kill. These two concepts are different. Part of the problem I had with the professor and his hypothetical stories was that he never even discussed the possibility that murder and killing were two different things. The fact is that even our judicial system makes such distinctions when they decide between, what is called murder and manslaughter. "Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn’t involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life. The absence of malice aforethought means that manslaughter involves less moral blame than either first or second degree murder.” (Berman) Murder on the other hand is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” (Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.).,
The first option I can consider is calling for a back up in form of quick air rescuers from the station in order for them to cope up with the elapsing time before the tide covers the woman and the five children since the car will possibly run over and kill the stuck man if forced through the narrow road. And respectively, contact the navy officers if they are around the waters in which case they will be in a better position to assist the woman within the duration left. These two options will consequently try to encounter the fact that I can’t access the beach on time to save the woman on foot and optionally I will have to sacrifice an...