Moral Dilemma Scenarios

A Callous Passerby Roger Smith, a skillful 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 desperately 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. "Why should I inconvenience myself for this kid," Smith says to himself, and passes on. Does Roger Smith have a moral obligation to save the boy? Explain why or why not. Yes, he does. To let another human being because you dont feel you need to spend the minute it takes to save them on preserving their life is the most morally wrong thing you could ever possibly do. Also, Roger has the qualifications to easily save the child, and save a life (not to mention a lot of emotion pain and heartache for a lot of people). To even ponder whether you should save him or not is horrible. How do you know? All humans have an obligation to save each others lives if it doesnt endanger them, and sometimes even then it is the right thing to do to try. If Roger didnt save the boy, it would be on his conscience forever, and would render him a horrible excuse for a person with non-existent morals. The only right decision in this situation is to save the child, or he would have just made the most morally-incorrect choice in the history of the world. IF ROGER WERE A HINDU:

If Roger were a Hindu, he would have to save the boy or risk infringing upon his Dharma. It is his duty to himself and the world to save the boy. Also, he would get bad Karma, meaning not only that he would be affected in a bad way by something else. Also, he risks being reborn into a lower caste, which is not something he wants to happen. The principles of Hinduism are that people should love and help one another. This is backed up by Freys text, as it states, Another basic teaching is nonviolence. Hindus believe that all life forms have a soul, so Hindus respect all forms of life and avoid doing them harm (148). Because of this, Roger would never let a helpless soul die when he could prevent it so easily. Therefore, Roger would be forced to jump in the water to save the child, as he is bound by his religion. Hindus also value kindness, and to let a child die because you dont want to deal with the inconvenience of saving them would render him a bad Hindu, and would be reborn into a lower caste, or lower form of life. IF ROGER WERE A BUDDHIST: If Roger were a Buddhist, he would be forced to save the child because of the Buddhas Eightfold Paths teachings. First off, he would be directly violating the path of Right Effort, which teaches followers to promote good actions and prevent evil ones (Frey 159). If he saved the child, he would be giving effort for good intentions, which follows that path. But if he did not, he would be promoting evil just because he didnt wish to put any effort into saving him . Therefore, he would be violating one

of Buddhas teachings, and as a result would be a non-devoted Buddhist. Also, he would be violating two other paths, Right Action and Right Purpose, which mean to not lie, kill, or steal, and to live a life of selflessness, love, and nonviolence. He would basically be killing the boy by choosing to let him die when he can be saved so easily, and be very selfish to not put the time in to save him. Also, he is causing suffering and pain for the child, which is taboo in the Buddhist religion. Overall, Roger would have to save the child due to his moral values. IF ROGER WERE CONFUCIANIST If Roger were a Confucianist, he would be morally obligated to save the boy, not because of his religious teachings, but because Confucianists also have the basic moral obligations of a human being. Confucianists do not follow teachings of compassion; rather, they follow the teachings of knowledge. In the text, it states, The goal of Confucianism is a just and peaceful society (Frey 208). They also sanctify their relationships, but Roger Smith has none of the 5 Basic Relationships with the boy. Therefore, it isnt his religion that will motivate him to save the boy, but his humanity. Also, since Roger has been a seeker of knowledge for a period of time, he surely has the knowledge that if he doesnt save the boy, letting him die will be on his conscience for the rest of his years, if he has any feelings at all. Therefore, he should know that the best possible route he could take would be to dive in and get the child to safety. Although Confucianism technically doesnt require it, he should be motivated to do it anyways. CONCLUSION Overall, having a common set of beliefs is important to all civilizations, because it does a lot of good. To have people thinking along the same guidelines is the easiest way to keep everyone in line, and have a rich culture at the same time. It doesnt matter whether the beliefs are religious or plain old moral values, as long as the beliefs are for good, everything will work much smoother as a result. People will have something in common, crime will be discouraged, and everyone will be happier as a whole. To Tell or Not to Tell Judy is a twelve-year-old girl. Her mother promised her that she could go to a special rock concert coming to their town if she saved up her baby-sitting money to buy a ticket to the concert. She managed to save up the fifteen dollars the ticket cost plus another five dollars. But then her mother changed her mind and told Judy that she had to spend the money on new clothes for school. Judy was disappointed and decided to go to the concert anyway. She bought a ticket and told her mother that she had only been able to save five dollars. That Saturday she went to the performance and told her mother that she was spending the day with a friend. A week passed without her mother finding out. Judy then told her older sister, Louise, that she had gone to the performance and had lied to her mother about it. Louise wonders whether to tell their mother what Judy did. What is the morally responsible thing for Louise to do in this situation? Explain why. How do you know?

Obey or Resist Joe is a fourteen-year-old boy who wanted to go to camp very much. His father promised him he could go if he saved up the money for it himself. So Joe worked hard at his paper route and saved up the $40 dollars it cost to go to camp, and a little more besides. But just before camp was going to

start, his father changed his mind. Some of his fathers friends decided to go on a special fishing trip, and Joe's father was short of the money it would cost. So he told Joe to give him the money he had saved from the paper route. Joe didn't want to give up going to camp, so he thinks of refusing to give his father the money. What is the correct moral decision for Joe to make? Explain why. Joe earned his money fair and square, because he wanted to use it for a goal that was promised to him by his dad to be fulfilled. So, when his dad becomes selfish and tries to take the money his son earned just to use it for his own intentions, it is very wrong. It is also fairly easy to raise $40, and his dad can most likely obtain it in a fair way that isnt stealing from his son and breaking his promise. Joe has a right to keep the money. How do you know? Joes dad is not special is such a way that makes it so he can steal from his child, and break his promise along the way just so he can go out fishing with his friends. Joes wish is also much cheaper, so to destroy what Joe wants to do (which is very cheap), just so his dad can go on his more expensive trip is morally wrong. Therefore, Joes dad should apologize to his son, and send him off to his summer camp.

Life Saving Medicine In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug originally cost him to produce. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. What is the correct moral decision for Heinz to make? Explain why. Heinz should break into the store and steal the medicine, but he should leave $500. The $400 is for the medicine, and the extra $100 to cover any damage or inconveniences that Heinz may have caused. He can administer his wife the medicine, and flee to avoid any charges. Although he has broken the law, he has prevented a greedy man from taking his wifes life away from her because he was obsessed with earning money. How do you know? This is the correct thing to do because letting someone close to you die without trying everything you can to save him or her is morally incorrect. Technically, breaking and entering is also wrong, but it is to save someones life, and the man is still getting paid a fair amount. He is covering his damages with interest, and the medicine will save his wife, so everybody wins. He has a moral obligation to his wife, as a person he loves, to protect her, and if he has the choice to obtain the medicine, he has to take it, whether or not it is 100% legal.

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 morally right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. They, after all, would be the one most likely to die anyways. Should the passengers on the boat support or oppose the captains idea? Explain why or why not. Yes, they need to support his cause. If they dont throw off any passengers, everyone might die. But alas, throwing off certain people may scar others for life, like their family. It would cause a huge amount of grief. Therefore, root out the old and weak, and the weak with no family aboard. The old have already reached their lifes end, and should die for a cause that will save a huge amount of other people. Also, if anyone brought along possessions, throw them off if they dont aid survival. Any volunteers should be able to go, but not if they are very strong or helpful, because that would work against the goal of survival. How do you know? Although sending a fellow person to their death is a horribly morally wrong thing to do, it may be the only option if it is to save the lives of many others. To preserve the lives of many, sometimes it is necessary to end the lives of few.