Moral Dilemma Discussion

The discussion question for this week is: consider a situation that confronted you with a moral dilemma. Describe the situation, then discuss what each of these theories of obligation would have required you to do: natural law, utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, virtue ethics, Buddhist ethics. Do these theories provide clear guidance about what you should do? Explain.

For the first post you will need to start a new thread and offer your thoughts on the discussion question. This post should be at least 300 words.

For each of the other three posts you will need to go to a thread created by another student, read his or her thoughts (and any comments that have already been written), then offer a response. These posts should each be at least 100 words.

FIRST RESPONSE TO REPLY: A recent moral dilemma I have been confronted with is the decision to end a friendship with a best friend, whom I had previously been deeply in love with. The friendship was, to put it lightly, volatile, causing both of us extreme emotional harm. To protect the privacy of this friend, I will not give more details about the nature of this volatility. The friendship was ended by me, and I wonder every day if this was the morally correct thing to do.

Natural Law would dictate that one of the basic forms of good is friendship, and therefore the ending of a friendship that was as deep and intimate as ours would violate the natural order of human nature. Most likely, I have committed an immoral act under the scheme of natural law.

Utilitarianism would dictate that the decision to end the friendship should only be made if the amount of happiness caused by the action outweighs the amount of unhappiness caused by it. The benefits of ending the friendship include the removal of the extreme emotional turmoil both of us experienced during periods of aforementioned volatility, and the removal of accusations and paranoias. The harms caused by this decision include loneliness for both of us and a loss of intimacy and a support system for both of us. Utilitarianism would have me weigh the significance and degree of the benefits and losses caused by the action of ending the friendship, and to make the decision if and only if the benefits outweigh the losses. For my own well-being, the decision was just under utilitarianism. For my friend, I cannot say, as it would be in this situation difficult or impossible to measure the amount of happiness or unhappiness the decision caused (this is specific to this situation I believe, due to the whole volatility thing)

Kant’s categorical imperative would recommend that the main considerations of taking action if I would want for all people in the same situation to act as I would act: that all people should end a friendship as volatile and difficult as this one was. Under the same maxims that I used to make this decision; I believe that it is right under Kant’s first imperative to have ended the friendship. On his second imperative, that a person should not be treated as a means, but as an end in themselves, I believe that the decision made is perhaps not as justified, as in the decision was made solely by me.

Virtue ethics would have me wonder what kind of person would end a volatile friendship, and what the true motivations were for doing so (and how those motivations align with character traits). A person would decide to end a friendship if the hurt caused by it outweighed the happiness caused by it if they were… well, looking out for themselves. My reasoning in my action was not just for my own benefit, but for that of my friend also. I was not the only one experiencing extreme turmoil. Someone who is both selfish and selfless may do as I did, considering the emotional turmoil of myself and of my friend. Ideally, a balance of selfishness and selflessness should guide me. I do not know what virtue ethics would call my action, but I’m not sure that it is good.

Buddhist ethics would say that I have not broken any of the five precepts in my decision, but I may have caused harm to my friend. Buddhist ethics would most likely want me to be unselfish in the greatest of ways, and to make sacrifices for the well-being of others. It would most likely have me work to mentally diminish the amount of pain felt by me in the friendship and maximize the amount of happiness given to my friend by continuing the be a support system. I believe Buddhist ethics would call my action morally wrong.

In my opinion, some of these systems give advice better suited to my personal flavor of ethics than others. I find that utilitarianism and Buddhist ethics are most clear and logical. The interesting thing about that in the context of this discussion board is that my interpretations of each system gave me different verdicts on the morality of my actions in this situation.

This discussion board was very emotionally taxing for me to complete. This is a good thing. Ethics are not easy, nor should they be.

SECOND RESPONSE TO REPLY: As a child growing up, my father raised me by his values. My father taught me to be kind, honest, and to treat others as you want to be treated. I carried these values throughout my childhood up to my teens. There were hick ups, here and there, but for the most part I stayed on the right path. Immediately after graduating high school, I enlisted into the United States Army. In basic training, the military teaches you core values, such as: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. All of these are good values to have, regardless if you are serving in the military or not. Everyone’s integrity is tested at least once in their lives. My integrity was tested more than once while I was serving in the Army. Since I was little, I have never enjoyed running, and you do a lot of running in the Army. One day, we had a brigade 12k run. In simple terms, around three hundred soldiers, from different battalions, have to come together and run side by side in columns. Before the run was going to start, my buddies went to a near by building to escape the dreadful run ahead of us. I had to reason with myself, do I really want to run? When I can simply hide away with my buddies to avoid suffering, or do the right thing and suffer with the other soldiers? After contemplating my options, I decided to have integrity and suffer. In my opinion, you are what your actions portray you to be. “Through our actions, we shape the kind of person we gradually become, and the kind of person we are is, in turn, expressed through our actions.” (Velasquez 539) Aristotle discusses that virtue ethics shapes us to a person we want to be. Aristotle states that we acquire virtues through experiences and training by the communities around us. My community was my father and the military. These two aspects of my life have had major influences on my virtue ethics and my decision making skills on the topic of morals. The Kantian approach supports the idea that we should treat others how we want to be treated. The golden rule states, “we should do to others as we wish them to do to us.” (Velasquez 552) The Utilitarian Approach suggests that morals depend on the situation. If I I would have left with my buddies to avoid pain and misery, then morally that would be okay. The slap on the rest compared to the long dreadful run makes it the better alternative to pick. According to natural law, if my intention aims at the good and not the bad, then it is morally okay. (Velasquez 557) I would prevent physical damage and pain to my body if I do not run. This perspective makes it morally okay according to natural law. All the theories have clear explanations, but provide only subjective guidance to what I should have done in that moment. All the theories are right, but wrong at the same time.

THIRD RESPONSE TO REPLY: I thought a lot about certain moral dilemmas I have encountered through my life, and nothing seems to stand out more than the decision that was left up to me at the age of 21 whether to keep my father on life support or pull the plug and let him go. My father spent most of my life in and out of the hospital with heart problems, and at the age of 33 had a quadruple bypass, and ultimately was put on the heart transplant list at the age of 48. Sadly, before he could get the heart transplant a procedure was needed called an ablation. He ended up passing away during that procedure. After hours of the doctors working to bring him back, we were ultimately left with the decision to keep him on life support or pull the plug and let him go. My mother who would normally be the one to make the decision was beyond a mess, as were we all, however the decision was left up to me, and it was the hardest one I have ever had to make.

The Natural Law theory which asserts that there is a moral code which applies to all humans and which exists within our nature would have allowed me to make the decision knowing that my dad would have never wanted to spend the rest of his life being hooked up to machines with very little quality of life. The utilitarianism theory which favors acts that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, would have told me to keep him here on earth with us, because we could not bear the thought of losing him. Kant’s categorical imperative theory which tells us that something that a person must do no matter what the circumstances, and it being imperative to an ethical person. I feel as though this theory is a little confusing as if I could have walked away from the situation all together that night, I would have, however that is not what would have been the “right” thing to do. Virtue ethics which is not concerned with what we ought to do, but with what kind of person we should be, would be me making the decision and taking into account not only the wants of my family, but the wants of my father as well. The Buddhist ethics theory which is closest to the ethic theory would also allow me to think of the consequences that each choice had, and how it would ultimately affect those around me, and my dad. While I do not believe that all of these theories provide clear guidance on what I should have done, I do believe that they play a role, and that different circumstances bring about new ethic approaches, and ways to decide what is the appropriate decision with different moral dilemmas, and how to make the decision on what to do in each circumstance.