Hello everyone!!!!!
We have finally reached the mid-way point of the semester, and I must say I’ve really enjoyed my “ethical” experience with all of you. We’ve studied six different ethical theories and have had the chance to consider and utilize these theories in different moral/ethical dilemmatic scenarios such as the “Trolley Problem” and “Anne Frank”
Now, I have another dilemma to add to our list. I recently came across an interesting moral dilemmatic scenario on the internet, which I would like to put up for discussion.
The story is as follows:
One morning you are driving to work, and as per usual you are running a bit late, so you are driving a touch faster than the speed limit. You reach down to your stereo to change the CD, when all of a sudden your car hits something solid. You spin to a stop, but not before several more cars have run into you and each other in an attempt to avoid the accident.
As you look up and out of your car, you can see that you hit a person, and that the person is not looking very good. In fact, you are sure that they are dead. You shakily get out of your car, and look around at the damage that has been caused. Several cars have been badly smashed up, but more importantly you have killed someone with your careless driving.
As you are standing there in shock, a woman comes up to you, tears running down her face, and obviously very shook up. As a natural reaction, you ask her what is wrong. She gives you a funny look, and then she explains that she just ran over someone. You ask her where this person is, and she points towards the person that you ran over!
You don’t understand why, but for some reason this woman thinks that she caused this accident and killed the person, when in fact you are well aware that you were the cause. Whoever accepts the blame is likely to be placed in jail for a very long time. If you let the woman take the blame, there is a very good chance you will get away with it all. However, there is also the chance that you could be placed in jail for even longer for trying to cover it up.
What do you do? Support your decision with one of the ethical theories studied in class
Here’s the url link for this hypothetical scenario: http://community.coastalcourier.com/blogs/detail/5166/
Have a wonderful fall break. I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlright Prof. John-Teye, I'm gonna try to solve your questions.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I would like to look at your dilemma from a personal perspective. Mostly, your example deals with what I was writing about a couple of weeks ago in my post "Why Morality - A different Approach" (http://ethicsatrhodes.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-morality-different-approach.html#comments), that is to say, why should we act in a moral way, when we could be better off acting unjustly/not virtuously/immorally. Personally, I would tell the truth, not because I am such a good follower of Kant's theories, but because I know that I couldn't sleep any second in my life anymore, knowing the truth and pretending to be not guilty.
Talking about Kant's decision is actually not necessary, because the answer would probably the same like in the Anne-Frank-dilemma: NEVER lie, so accept your guilt.
Plato would probably also argue that lying is a sign of a disordered and unjust soul, and Aristotle would consider not taking the guilt as a deficiency of honesty and therefore as not virtuous.
Very interesting is the position of Epicureans, also in comparison with Utilitarians: Epicureans would probably try to minimize the pain, that is to say the pain FOR YOURSELF and not for everybody who is involved, so this could be a good reason for lying. Utilitarians would most likely consider the pain and pleasure of all affected people. One could argue that being punished for a crime you never did is suffering even more than being punished for a just reason. The woman in Emmanuel's example didn't know that she was innocent, so this argument doesn't count, but, enjoying a good life, based on a lie doesn't cause a really good life and happiness, therefore the answer of Utilitarians would also be: Don't lie.
Thinking about the Stoic's point of view, one argument is that "living in accordance with nature" could be interpreted as "survival of the fittest". In this case, the smarter and the more sly person "survives", that means is better off at the end.
This is my very short overview so far. If I missed a very basic point, let me know!
I'm with Flo in that I couldn't live with myself knowing I let an innocent person take my place in jail. Kant would agree with this decision completely, as the honest thing to do is the right thing to do. Utilitarians, I believe, would also argue it best to tell the truth for the sake of this woman. As Mill argued, there is great happiness to gain from sacrificing your happiness for the sake of another's.
ReplyDeleteFrom Spinoza's perspective, however, I believe he would just let it happen. It was nature/God's decision that caused you to crash the car and it was that same cause that made the woman think that she was the one who caused it. Furthermore, the loss of this person's life was meant to happen, so feeling guilty about it would contradict with nature, which Spinoza strongly discourages.
Overall, I must take Kant's side on this issue.